On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:08:31PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: > Hi Guillaume, > > Guillaume Delacour wrote (10 Mar 2015 21:51:39 GMT) : > > I've also patched gdisk_test.sh to test return code of partition table > > creation, like you've made in your test. > > Great! Now, I don't see this change applied upstream, so it should > *not* go into the same quilt patch as the one we've cherry-picked > from upstream. Could you please fix that?
Splitted in two patches. > > Also, has this additional change been forwarded upstream yet? DEP-3 > says "Any value other than "no" or "not-needed" means that the patch > has been forwarded upstream" for the Forwarded field. The shell script i've submitted upstream a few years ago need to be modified with redundant if/else blocks. I'm not sure now how to modify all tests to check return codes. I consider my patch as a "non-regression" test only for this bug. This is why i've made the change in this way. > > > I've prepared a fixed version on mentors: > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/g/gdisk/gdisk_0.8.10-2.dsc > > I'm reviewing the one in the Vcs-Git. Hopefully it's the same. > Note that the main goal of my review is to increase chances the > resulting package is granted an unblock request. > > * Why was the "Bug:" DEP-3 field, that was in the patch I've > proposed, removed? > * Are you sure that the trailing comma in the DEP-3 "Origin:" field > is legit? I've totally imported your proposal and build a new -2 package. > > Other than these few nitpicking comments, it looks good \o/ > > > It would be great if you can upload it to unstable and include it for > > Jessie (as i've bumped the severity to serious; i agree with you that > > without the upstream fix, it can break user scripts). > > I'll gladly do that once we agree on the content of the package to > upload :) > > Cheers, > -- > intrigeri -- Guillaume Delacour
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
