Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-08-18 Thread Markus Schade
Hi Gianfranco On 17.08.2015 at 16:41 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: 1) # upstream does not sign releases #yadifa source: debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature That is a commented out leftover. I have removed it anyway so other won't think it is still used like you ;-) 2)

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-08-17 Thread Markus Schade
Hi everyone, On 16.08.2015 at 22:53 Jakub Wilk wrote: * Christian Kastner c...@debian.org, 2015-08-16, 19:08: debian/rules: - I believe the export DH_OPTIONS [...] to make magic work can be dropped. I think this is a remnant from a time long past; I can't find any reference to this in recent

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-08-17 Thread Gianfranco Costamagna
Control: owner -1 ! Hi Markus, Following my review: 1) # upstream does not sign releases #yadifa source: debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature ls upstream/signing-key.asc upstream/signing-key.asc which one is correct? 2) sbin/yadifad/install-sh not mentioned in copyright (and every

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-08-16 Thread Christian Kastner
Hi Markus, On 2015-06-05 13:52, Markus Schade wrote: New package for yadifa 2.1.0 is available http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yadifa/yadifa_2.1.0-1.dsc It would be great if someone could sponsor this package. I think the history of this bugreport proves that the package is

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-08-16 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Christian Kastner c...@debian.org, 2015-08-16, 19:08: debian/rules: - I believe the export DH_OPTIONS [...] to make magic work can be dropped. I think this is a remnant from a time long past; I can't find any reference to this in recent documentation. dh(1), for example, makes no mention of

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-06-05 Thread Markus Schade
On 03/05/2015 04:32 PM, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 16:24 +0100, Markus Schade wrote: And I have asked them to do so, of course. Likewise with the other things you mentioned (e.g. signing their releases). Ah, good. I wasn't sure if you had done that, sorry. My point is that I

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-03-05 Thread Paul Wise
On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 16:24 +0100, Markus Schade wrote: Yes, I know that. ;-) And I have asked them to do so, of course. Likewise with the other things you mentioned (e.g. signing their releases). Ah, good. I wasn't sure if you had done that, sorry. My point is that I cannot make upstream

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-03-05 Thread Paul Wise
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Markus Schade wrote: But then again, I am just the packager not the developer. So I can do little about the code quality. You could forward the code quality issues upstream as suggested by the Debian social contract: https://www.debian.org/social_contract --

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-03-05 Thread Markus Schade
On 03/05/2015 04:16 PM, Paul Wise wrote: On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Markus Schade wrote: You could forward the code quality issues upstream as suggested by the Debian social contract: https://www.debian.org/social_contract Yes, I know that. ;-) And I have asked them to do so, of

Bug#683120: RFS: yadifa/2.0.5-1 [ITP]

2015-03-05 Thread Markus Schade
Dear Paul, dear mentors, Thank you for your extensive review. I won't go into detail for every item you have mentioned, but I believe that many if not most issues have been dealt with. But then again, I am just the packager not the developer. So I can do little about the code quality. All of my