Sorry for the delayed answer! El 05/03/22 a las 07:09, Martin-Éric Racine escribió: > 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: [...] > > > 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 tracked upstream, the package is seriously outdated and not up to 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.
If you want to go even further, it would be great if you think about an
ITS ;-)
>
> 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.
>
I cannot talk for the MIA Team, but I am sure they do as best as they
can. And maybe they need some help to spot those packages that urgently
need love.
> > * 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.
>
So maybe wrap-and-sort is not clever enough. Expanding the tabs, this is
how I see it on my machine:
Files: debian/*
Copyright: 2010-2013 Roy Marples <r...@marples.name>
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
Cheers,
-- Santiago
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
