Bug#916468: whitedune: diff for NMU version 0.30.10-2.2

2019-01-15 Thread Paul Gevers
tags 916468 + patch tags 916468 + pending Dear maintainer, I've prepared an NMU for whitedune (versioned as 0.30.10-2.2) and uploaded it to DELAYED/10. Please feel free to tell me if I should delay it longer. I have based my NMU on top of what is currently in the salsa archive, so it includes a b

Bug#916468: whitedune: diff for NMU version 0.30.10-2.2

2019-02-10 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi On 21-01-2019 21:30, Paul Gevers wrote: > Pending the discussion in bug 919951 [1] I canceled my NMU. Depending on > the outcome and if nothing has happened in this bug by the whitedune > maintainers, I'll re-upload with the fix for the man-page included. The TC discussion in bug 919951 isn't

Bug#916468: whitedune: diff for NMU version 0.30.10-2.2

2019-01-17 Thread Paul Gevers
My package in DELAYED is missing a solution for the man page. I'll fix that. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#916468: whitedune: diff for NMU version 0.30.10-2.2

2019-01-17 Thread Andreas Beckmann
Control: clone -1 -2 Control: reassign -2 dune 1.6.2-1 Control: retitle -2 dune: needs Breaks+Replaces: whitedune (<< 0.30.10-2.2) Control: tags -2 = On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 21:16:00 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote: > I've prepared an NMU for whitedune (versioned as 0.30.10-2.2) and If whitedune is going to

Bug#916468: whitedune: diff for NMU version 0.30.10-2.2

2019-01-21 Thread Paul Gevers
Control: tags -1 pending Hi, Pending the discussion in bug 919951 [1] I canceled my NMU. Depending on the outcome and if nothing has happened in this bug by the whitedune maintainers, I'll re-upload with the fix for the man-page included. Paul [1] https://bugs.debian.org/919951 signature.asc