Hi Jonas, On Sat, 2023-07-01 at 11:07 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Package: rkdeveloptool > Version: 1.32+git20210408.46bb4c0-3 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: upstream > > I own a PineNote, and use rkdeveloptool for flashing software onto it, > but have found the code in Debian to be inferior for that use. > > Please consider switching to the (slightly) newer fork done by Pine64, > which fixes some bugs and improves the user interface, while seemingly > fully preserving backwards compatibility: > https://gitlab.com/pine64-org/quartz-bsp/rkdeveloptool > > What I use now is a fork of this package, maintained here: > https://salsa.debian.org/js/rkdeveloptool > > If you like, I can push that into the official Salsa packaging git - > or you can cherry-pick the bits you like from it, of course. :-)
I'm fine with picking your patches to the packaging and changing the upstream source to this (backwards-compatible) version & uploading a new version. One question is what do we do about the version? Currently we are tracking the upstream source from rockchip https://github.com/rockchip-linux/rkdeveloptool which is at version 1.32+git20210408.46bb4c0 but the Pine64 version is at currently tagged at version 1.1.0 which is much lower. I wonder if I should do something like tag the new upstream source version with an epoch, like 2:1.1.0 ? The policy states that prepending an epoch to a pacakge version needs some additional consensus from debian-devel: > You should not change the epoch, even in experimental, without getting > consensus on debian-devel first. so I have therefore CC the list to this bug, to see if my thinking is correct :-) Note that also we have written a replacement tool in Rust called rockusb (which allows you to write an image with holes to the device, which can speed up the flashing), packaging this in Debian is also on my the wishlist: https://github.com/collabora/rockchiprs/tree/main Cheers! Chris
