On 2012-09-04 17:06, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > Actualy, re-reading what you just wrote, yes, a 2.21 branch > incorporating only packaging changes pertaining to 2.21 would be best. > Once it's done, I could probably find you someone to sponsor it. :)
Great! I'll provide you with an updated branch tomorrow evening (CEDT) latest. On 2012-09-04 14:16, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > If you'll allow it by explicitly authorizing me via this bug, I could > push it as an NMU and find someone to sponsor it. In any case: I would be fine with you NMUing. > For obvious reasons, I don't think that 3.0 would be accepted into > Wheezy, however. Agreed (hence why I didn't even try) > Btw, about the deleted debian/watch: it should be possible to > implement something that regularly checks the upstream Git tree for > changes in Git tags indicating new versions. It would be much better > than to delete the file. The problem here is that the source was distributed *only* as a tarball, and that the official location of said tarball went dead, so no place exists to check. debian/copyright in git/HEAD has more details (see the Disclaimer field). Thanks, Christian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
