On 09/05/2011 06:16 AM, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 03:25:19AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> thanks a lot for your work, but could you provide a "git format-patch"
>> type of patch against what's in the Git instead? That'd be really helpful.
>
> Here goes a patch against your current git, please check. I applied my
> changes on top of yours (with adaptations where necessary). Check my
> changes regarding Breaks:/Replaces: in debian/control. I think the new
> libnatpmp1 package does not need to specify any Breaks: or Replaces:
>
> If in doubt, ask in debian-mentors.
Hi,
Since libnatpmp1 is an update to libnatpmp0, I believe we need to
declare it, otherwise libnatpmp0 wont be replaced. I tried upgrading,
and unfortunately, I needed to "apt-get install libnatpmp1", otherwise
apt would say "libnatpmp0 will be kept back", so I guess that what I did
was wrong. Never the less, something has to be done about it, if we
don't want people to keep the obsolete libnatpmp0 on their system.
You've set libnatpmp-dev to depend on libc6-dev | libc-dev, I don't
think that's needed since this is a build-essential anyway.
Also, you did this:
-Replaces: libnatpmp0 (<= 20110808-2)
+Replaces: libnatpmp0, libnatpmp1 (<< ${binary:Version})
I think what I did was right, because after version 20110808-2, we don't
have the upgrade issue.
Also, why are you doing this?
- dh_installchangelogs Changelog.txt
+ dh_installchangelogs
I think it's cool to package upstream's Changelog.txt ... Or is it that
your patch is missing a debian/*.docs file?
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
