[RFS] python-osd (updated)
Hello Mentors and DPMT, I'd like to know if somebody is interested on reviewing (and eventually uploading) my package python-osd [0]. This revision would fix the bug #497768 [1] also it would remove an unnecessary dependency on python-simplejson [*], and I've already made a commit to the DPMT SVN repositories a couple of weeks ago, but i haven't had the time to make a request. BTW, Since the bug in the previous revision practically renders pyosd unusable, in order to have the chance to update this package on Lenny would be OK to change the severity from 'normal' to 'important' and/or the urgency to 'high'? Any advice is welcome. [*] I replaced my old powerpc by a new laptop, and i messed up everything. Shame on me for not noticing it. [0] http://lusers.com.ar/packages/python-osd_0.2.14-4.dsc [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=497768 Regards, Mauro -- JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lusers.com.ar/ | http://gcoop.com.ar 2B82 A38D 1BA5 847A A74D 6C34 6AB7 9ED6 C8FD F9C1 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] python-osd (updated)
On Monday 22 September 2008 17:14:02 Mauro Lizaur wrote: > Hello Mentors and DPMT, > > I'd like to know if somebody is interested on reviewing > (and eventually uploading) my package python-osd [0]. > This revision would fix the bug #497768 [1] also it would remove > an unnecessary dependency on python-simplejson [*], and I've > already made a commit to the DPMT SVN repositories a couple of weeks > ago, but i haven't had the time to make a request. > > BTW, Since the bug in the previous revision practically renders pyosd > unusable, in order to have the chance to update this package on Lenny > would be OK to change the severity from 'normal' to 'important' and/or the > urgency to 'high'? > Any advice is welcome. iirc, the release managers stated that urgency is not to be raised to higher priorities for this purpose. See: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg6.html I guess a package which fails to function at all in normal circumstances would certainly seem like an important bug, on face value. Thanks, Kel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFS] python-osd (updated)
Kel Modderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (22/09/2008): > > BTW, Since the bug in the previous revision practically renders > > pyosd unusable, in order to have the chance to update this package > > on Lenny would be OK to change the severity from 'normal' to > > 'important' and/or the urgency to 'high'? Any advice is welcome. I'd bump the bug severity to serious. > iirc, the release managers stated that urgency is not to be raised to > higher priorities for this purpose. See: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/07/msg6.html Indeed, but I'd use medium in this case, so that the package doesn't get hold too long in unstable (assuming the RMs grant it a freeze exception). If you don't find a sponsor, you're welcome to get back to me tomorrow or so. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] python-osd (updated)
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > If you don't find a sponsor, you're welcome to get back to me tomorrow > or so. > > Mraw, > KiBi. Hi KiBi, i've just updated the package, you may find it here [0], also I updated the severity to 'serious' and I'm sending a commit to the DPMT too. BTW, if you sponsor this package, the only thing left is to contact RMs explaining the situation, right? [0] http://lusers.com.ar/packages/python-osd_0.2.14-4.dsc Regards, Mauro -- JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lusers.com.ar/ | http://gcoop.com.ar 2B82 A38D 1BA5 847A A74D 6C34 6AB7 9ED6 C8FD F9C1 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] python-osd (updated)
Mauro Lizaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (22/09/2008):
> BTW, if you sponsor this package, the only thing left is to contact
> RMs explaining the situation, right?
Mostly, yes.
> [0] http://lusers.com.ar/packages/python-osd_0.2.14-4.dsc
Hmm, many remarks:
- debian/rules modifications aren't documented at all in the changelog.
- the libxosd2 dependency should be pulled by ${shlibs:Depends}, you
should never have to include a dependency manually like that.
- you didn't document that you dropped Conflicts and Replaces, nor why.
- you didn't document that you added a debian/watch file.
- your not mentioning the case change (s/python/Python/) in the first
line of the long description is OK, though.
So you've got to fix some bits before someone can sponsor this.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFS] python-osd (updated)
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hmm, many remarks:
> - debian/rules modifications aren't documented at all in the changelog.
> - the libxosd2 dependency should be pulled by ${shlibs:Depends}, you
>should never have to include a dependency manually like that.
> - you didn't document that you dropped Conflicts and Replaces, nor why.
> - you didn't document that you added a debian/watch file.
> - your not mentioning the case change (s/python/Python/) in the first
>line of the long description is OK, though.
>
> So you've got to fix some bits before someone can sponsor this.
>
Ok, I'll take care of these issues and upload them later.
Thanks,
Mauro
--
JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lusers.com.ar/ | http://gcoop.com.ar
2B82 A38D 1BA5 847A A74D 6C34 6AB7 9ED6 C8FD F9C1
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
