On 04/09/15 15:52, Daniel Glassey wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 02:48:45PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: >> Vaguely related to this, a ftp team member noted that there are open >> RM bugs for bibledit-gtk and xiphos, which seem to be in the same >> general area (bible study), and might get processed soon. If these >> are of interest to you, please reply to the removal bugs and either >> say "yes, this should be removed from unstable", or say what the plan >> is for fixing the issues that led to the bug. > > I haven't worked out who I should contact yet
https://bugs.debian.org/ftp.debian.org and more specifically https://bugs.debian.org/797564 https://bugs.debian.org/797568 which I see you have contacted already. That was the right thing to do. > I uploaded the source as well by mistake with bibledit-gtk_4.8-2. All uploads of new versions to Debian need source code; it's kind of the point :-) Redundantly uploading the orig.tar.gz even though it is in the archive already (due to using e.g. debuild -sa) is harmless, apart from wasting a bit of bandwidth. > After I realised that I made some more changes > and uploaded bibledit-gtk_4.8-3 binary only Binary-only uploads of a version whose source is not in the archive would be rejected. Do you mean "diff only"? > which was to close the removal bug Closing removal bugs (and other bugs in pseudo-packages) via packages' changelogs doesn't seem right in any case. If a removal request seems wrong, send mail to its bug address explaining why it shouldn't be removed, as you already did; and if you're really sure your reasons are good, close it by using the -done address (but there's no need to do that for those two removal bugs, because Scott already did). S
