Hi David, On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 12:53 +0200, David MartÃnez Moreno wrote: > El martes, 10 de octubre de 2006 11:32, Andree Leidenfrost escribió: > > Hi David, > > > > Thanks for your response! > > > > Yes, it is fine (you should have send to the bug a full patch with the > > > NMU diff, but other that that, it is fine). > > > > Not sure I understand this one: How would the NMU diff be different from > > the patch I did attach to the bug report originally. (I'm obviously > > missing something here and would be glad if you could tell me.) > > You should include the changelog part as well. That is, the full diff > between > the latest version and your NMUed version, and thus preferrably from the > package root directory, so the patch would have been like: > --- ntfsprogs-1.13.1.orig/debian/changelog > +++ ntfsprogs-1.13.1/debian/changelog > @ 0,0 @ blabla > + ntfsprogs (1.13.1-3.1) distribution... > blabla > ... > > I hope it is clearer now. :-)
Ah, now I get it! Sorry for being a bit thick and thanks for explaining! :-) > > > I am currently building a package including your patch. Thank you very > > > much. > > > > Well, thank you very much! :-) I'm glad that you still have enough time > > to pull the pin on the NMU and produce a 'proper' upload. > > I have to guess now how to remove the package from DELAYED-n... :-) > > Best regards, > > > Ender. Cheers, Andree -- Andree Leidenfrost @ Debian Developer Sydney - Australia
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
