Hi,
>1. My ITP bug seems to be correct. ><https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=813485> >On the same site, you can see my try of an RFS bug, I sent it to ><sub...@bugs.debian.org> with the subject "Bug#813485: RFS: setop/0.1-1 >[ITP]". So the address is correct, but the subject should have just been >"RFS: setop/0.1-1 [ITP]", or? yes, it seems correct, but it didn't work, because it should have opened a new bug with RFS subject (probably it was a problem in the BTS system, trying again might work) >2. What exactly shall I do now? Write a new message with correct >address, >subject and same content as in the first try? Or reply to an >existing message so that all mails are in the same thread? And what to >do with further mails – reply normal or the this new RFS try? try to resend the email. >When now someone downloads the sources from Github and just builds them >with >a simple make command, he gets the debug version. Can I somehow >influence this behavior without getting trouble with the rules for >packaging? make g++ -std=c++11 -O3 src/main.cpp -lboost_program_options -lboost_regex -o setop gdb ./setop Reading symbols from ./setop...(no debugging symbols found)...done. ls -l -rwxrwxr-x 1 locutus locutus 310064 mag 16 10:36 setop BTW libboost-dev is useless. CXXFLAGS="-g" make g++ -g -std=c++11 -O3 src/main.cpp -lboost_program_options -lboost_regex -o setop gdb ./setop Reading symbols from ./setop...done. ls -l -rwxrwxr-x 1 locutus locutus 2620792 mag 16 10:35 setop so, exporting CXXFLAGS in rules might help. and the default is *no*, it isn't built with Debug symbols enabled. >Shall the license keyword be public-domain like in my link or unlicense >like in yours? it should be the license written on your orig tarball. You have none right now, so choose one, and create a LICENSE file explaining all the licenses in the tarball. cheers, G.
