On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 1:21 AM Santiago R.R. <santiag...@riseup.net> wrote: > > El 02/03/22 a las 19:10, Martin-Éric Racine escribió: > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:55 PM Martin-Éric Racine > > <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:52 PM Santiago R.R. <santiag...@riseup.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > El 28/02/22 a las 16:52, Martin-Éric Racine escribió: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:42 PM Martin-Éric Racine > > > > > <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:26 PM Martin-Éric Racine > > > > > > <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:45 PM Santiago R.R. > > > > > > > <santiag...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > * Could you please fix the indentation of the your new entry in > > > > > > > > d/copyright? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, the whole file's indentation needs to be fixed. I had > > > > > > > troubles > > > > > > > aligning my addition, because the file currently uses TAB+2SPACES. > > > > > > > There really should be a linting tool for that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it seems that wrap-and-sort can be used for d/copyright > > > > > > too. > > > > > > I somehow was under the impression that it's only used for > > > > > > d/control. > > > > > > I'm extremely tempted to run it on the whole package. > > > > > > > > > > Reading back on Bug #964947, I notice that the request was for both > > > > > packaging current upstream and dropping the 5 out of the package name. > > > > > I would tend to agree. The 5 really only was meant as an upstream > > > > > branch tag. The source and binary really should be called 'dhcpcd' > > > > > since it essentially is a fork of the abandoned source of the same > > > > > name. > > > > > > > > Changing the source name means creating (or reintroducing) a different > > > > debian package. Just in case: > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=743218 > > > > > > > > Changing the binary name only means it would have to pass by NEW… > > > > > > Merely changing the binary name sounds perfectly reasonable to me. > > > > Please note that I have re-uploaded the package to Mentors. The log > > file is more explicit about cosmetic changes and about ./configure > > caveats. > > * Are you sure about this in debian/rules? > > + --libdir=/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu \ > > At a first glance, I suppose that would break multiarch support.
Without it, the udev backend goes in /lib, instead of /usr/lib like the rest of the package. It's in the changelog: --prefix somehow doesn't propagate as it should for --libdir and --mandir. > * I still don't feel fully comfortable with the cosmetic changes, > specially with wrap-and-sort, for *this* NMU. According to my > interpretation of developers-references, we should avoid that. > Scott is still listed as Maintainer, even if the package hasn't been > updated for a long time (hello MIA Team!). At the same time, I > appreciate your work and I think the changes you are making should > arrive into the debian archive sooner or later. > > Since I doubt, may I ask the MIA Team if it is OK to include cosmetic > changes in an NMU for package that hasn't been orphaned? I definitely went a step beyond NMU because, asides from not having tracked upstream, the package is seriously outdated and not up to current best practices. As a ground rule, a package that hasn't changed since oldstable definitely is up for a brush-up of its packaging to bring it up to current Policy, even if no new upstream has come. None of that has happened for this and a number of other packages. I feel that this (and several more) packages should be investigated by the MIA Team. The sheer amount of packages in the Debian archive that haven't been updated since oldstable (or that barely received a random cherry-picked patch from upstream Git applied by the security team) is alarming. Debian's archive is rotting, and that's not a good sign, considering how many distributions build their UI on top of Debian packages. > * Your entry in d/copyright still doesn't follow the same (weird) > indentation than previous contributors': > > Files: * > Copyright: 2006-2018 Roy Marples <r...@marples.name> > @@ -61,6 +62,7 @@ > 2013 Christoph Egger <christ...@debian.org> > 2014 Salvatore Bonaccorso <car...@debian.org> > 2015 Daniel Echeverry <epsilo...@gmail.com> > + 2022 Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi> > License: BSD-2 I used wrap-and-sort for that. Martin-Éric
