[Debian-med-packaging] libbpp-seq_2.2.0-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi,

Bad dak is bad
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libbpp-seq&suite=unstable
libbpp-seq9 | 2.0.3-1       | oldstable       | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc
libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1       | stable          | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1       | stable-kfreebsd | kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386
libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1       | unstable        | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x



dak ls libbpp-seq9v5 
libbpp-seq9v5 | 2.2.0-1       | testing    | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
libbpp-seq9v5 | 2.2.0-1       | unstable   | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x


I guess Andreas is fully correct, the rename is not necessary for backports, right?

G.





Il Martedì 17 Maggio 2016 15:15, Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> ha scritto:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:02:30PM +0000, Alexander Wirt wrote:

> 
> I can't find that version in DAK:
> 
> dak ls libbpp-seq9 |grep 2.2.0
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.2.0-1~bpo8+1 | backports-new   | amd64

Sorry, but how can I safely (and in this specific case quickly since it
was wrongly rejected last week where you said it is not in testing) this
package into backports?  Is re-uploading and pinging you OK?  I really
need the libbpp-* set in Jessie soon but upon this two times has costed
two weeks now.

I have no idea what might have went wrong again but I hope if I reupload
libbpp-seq again this could be processed quickly.

Thanks for your work for backports

      Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de