On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 3:28 PM Pieter Lenaerts <[email protected]> wrote: > I relaxed the dependency on rmp-serde again to >= 1.3.0 since 1.3.1 is > not available yet in any repo.
Please revert that. rmp-serde 1.3.1 was built today and will publish to unstable within a few hours. > I set the distribution in the changelog to experimental, but I have no upload > rights. Not sure if you want to upload or want to give me upload rights on > this > package already. Debian Maintainers cannot do uploads to NEW so I'll need to do the initial upload (probably later today). > I was going to enable salsa-ci, but I see I can't enable it in the salsa > project. Will you do the necessary? The GNOME team repos are already set to debian/salsa-ci.yml by default so a pipeline began running after you pushed debian/salsa-ci.yml Could you make your debian/salsa-ci.yml match https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/gnome-tour/-/blob/debian/latest/debian/salsa-ci.yml Your syntax is an older version (that still works). > What should we do with the sub crate process_data? > 1) Should it be a separate package or is all fine if we build like this? > 2) I'm also wondering if disabling the process_data tests is fine? But then > again, if the resources tests pass, then ... I guess that's what we need? I don't know. Since process_data is not published to crates.io, it's not that easy to package it separately. I don't think it's a problem to have a subproject something like this that is not packaged separately. papers has subprojects too, but it uses workspaces. Maybe resources should use a workspace which might help the debcargo update-dependencies command work better. Thank you, Jeremy Bícha
