On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 23:14 +0800, Tz-Huan Huang wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Adam D. Barratt
> <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
> > On 20.08.2012 10:49, Tz-Huan Huang wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm writing to you as I would like your approval to upload
> >> scim-tables package
> >> to testing-proposed-update in order to fix bug #684835.
> >
> > I assume because of the new upstream version already in unstable?
>
> Yes. The 0.5.11-1 is in unstable, and the 0.5.9-1 is FTBFS in testing now.
> I am not sure if it is appropriate to request for unblock 0.5.11-1.
> If you suggest requesting for the unblock, I'll do that instead of t-p-u.
The unstable upload appears to include most, if not all, of the
packaging changes which I indicated wouldn't be appropriate for t-p-u,
so I'm afraid I wouldn't be prepared to unblock it right now.
> >> The main change is a new patch to fix the FTBFS,
> >
> > That sounds like it should be fine, but we'd need to see the patch to be
> > sure.
> >
> >> others include the updates of
> >> debhelper related files, compat file, debian-standard-version, etc.
> >
> > These, otoh, aren't really appropriate changes to be making during a freeze,
> > particularly for an upload via t-p-u. If any of them are required to fix
> > the RC bug then they might be okay, but again we'd need to see the diff.
> >
> > Please could you attach a source debdiff between the package currently in
> > testing and the proposed t-p-u upload to this bug report? It makes it much
> > easier to track, and more transparent, as to exactly what was approved for
> > upload.
>
> Sure, please find the diff attached.
Thanks. As I mentioned in my earlier mail, several of the changes in
the diff aren't really appropriate for an unblock from unstable, even
less so for an upload via t-p-u.
+ * debian/patches/gtk3.patch: fix FTBFS (Closes: #684835).
That's larger than I was expecting, but looks reasonable. I'm assuming
it's already applied to the package in unstable?
+ * debian/patches/*.patch: upgrade to quilt style.
+ * debian/compat: update to 9.
+ * debian/source/format: update to 3.0 (quilt).
+ * debian/rules:
+ - simplified for debhelper 9.
I'm afraid none of the above are appropriate changes during a freeze.
+ - add multi-arch support.
This is also not really a change to be making during a freeze. More to
the point, could you please highlight the part of the new debian/rules
which makes this change? I might just be missing it in the noise, but
there didn't seem to be anything specifically multi-arch related in the
new rules file.
+ * debian/control:
+ - change maintainer and uploaders.
+ - update Standards-Version to 3.9.3.
The first of these is presumably to match the status of the package in
unstable? The Standards-Version change isn't really necessary, but not
the end of the world so long as you've carefully checked that it implies
no changes.
+ - depends on debhelper >= 9, scim >= 1.4.13.
The debhelper change isn't unblock material, as above. What's the
reasoning behind the scim dependency change?
Looking at the diff, this also appears to be a Build-Depends change?
+ - remove dependency on dpatch.
NAK; see above.
+ - remove Vcs-*.
Is the packaging no longer maintained in a VCS?
There's also several changes of the type
+Depends: scim, ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
which don't appear to be mentioned in the changelog. Have you verified
what effect they have on the generated dependencies?
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
