Harald Dunkel writes ("Re: new network-manager-strongswan package [and 1 more
messages]"):
> Sorry for the confusion. Of course n-m-s is not in salsa (yet). I was
> working on mg (my other package) in parallel, which *is* in salsa.
Ah. No problem.
> It would be nice to start with 1.4.5-1 on salsa. But AFAIK I need a
> sponsor (somebody with a full functional account) for either creating a
> repo for an official Debian package, or for getting a real account.
> Currently, if I try to create a project, then it gets a funny looking
> URL
> https://salsa.debian.org/harri-guest/
>
> instead of the expected
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/network-manager-strongswan
> :-(
Let me work on this first.
...
Fixed I think. I have created this:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/network-manager-strongswan
and made you ("harri-guest") a maintainer of it.
I think you can do all the rest of the setup yourself. Let me know if
you want anything else doing.
> On 2/24/20 3:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > I looked at the diff etc. and I have some observations:
> >
> > * It would be nice to add a Vcs-Git header.
>
> I am OK with this, but I would suggest to wait for the move to salsa,
> see below.
OK.
> > * I noticed you changed the Build-Depends. There is a change to
> > debhelper, which is expected. But there are also changes to the
> > network-manager build-dependencies. I looked for some file in
> > upstream wqher etehse requirements are documented, and/or something
> > in the debian/changelog to explain or document the change, but
> > found nothing. Can you please explain ?
> >
>
> The version numbers of the dependencies have been changed according to
> the packages found in Buster. I didn't feel confident with the old Network
> Manager version numbers. n-m-s 1.4.5-1 has never been built or tested
> with these anicient versions. Sorry, I forgot to mention it in the
> changelog.
I guess this is up to you. My personal preference is not to update
B-D unless I know of a reason why it wouldn't work. But I know many
people adopt your approach. Thanks for the explanation.
> > * Please can you consider providing an explanation of the patch
> > glib-private.patch *inside* that patch file. (Ideally patches
> > should be in git-format-patch format or or DEP-3 format.)
>
> About glib-private.patch: I am not quite sure what you mean. I don't
> see a nested patch, just debian/patches/glib-private.patch. Apparently
> it *is* in git format.
No, I mean: inside the patch file, there should be an explanation.
$ head -3 debian/patches/glib-private.patch
diff --git a/src/frontends/gnome/properties/nm-strongswan.c
b/src/frontends/gnome/properties/nm-strongswan.c
index de15c4271..d261dcb7a 100644
Compare:
$ head -13
/home/ian/things/Debian/Psutils/psutils/debian/patches/psnup1-remove-a-confusing-and-unnecessar
From: Reuben Thomas <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:37:28 +0000
X-Dgit-Generated: 1.17.dfsg-4 45990e7c75dde21ad20a9e6e22b2d8e980b92459
Subject: psnup(1): Remove a confusing and unnecessary qualification about units.
Apropos of #695179.
---
--- psutils-1.17.dfsg.orig/psnup.man
+++ psutils-1.17.dfsg/psnup.man
@@ -54,10 +54,7 @@ option gives the paper height,
normally specified in
> > * Since you have already committed your finalised 1.4.5-1 version, it
> > would be best not to make more commits before bumping the changelog
> > version again. So, if in response to this review you would like to
> > make changes, rather than give explanations, please use 1.4.5-2 for
> > your next revision.
> >
>
> Sorry about that. Since nobody except you knows the current git repo
> for n-m-s, do you think it would be possible to delete the unwanted
> signed tag, using
>
> git push --delete origin tagName
> ?
IMO there is nothing wrong with just going to a new version, -2. This
will all be much less confusing and not involve deleting tags,
etc. etc. Integers are cheap.
> > * Indeed, there is no need for you to make a signed tag. Because
> > salsa is access controlled I feel I can trust it enough for this, at
> > least as a baseline for review. If you like, feel free to leave the
> > changelog as UNRELEASED; I am happy to do that change to `unstable'
> > as part of the upload and push to salsa. If you would like to work
> > this way, please give user `iwj' access to the repo.
>
> I am not sure about the UNRELEASED. Usually I push the package to my
> own repositories run by reprepro. It doesn't like the UNRELEASED.
Ah. Well, another tactic is to add a ~pre to the Debian revision. Eg
1.4.5-1~pre2
or something. But this is up to you. All I'm really going to insisti
on is that I shouldn't need to delete tags.
I can bump the version myself if you like but then you'll have to pull
from me (or salsa, once the code is there).
Should I push 1.4.5-1 right away or should I expect revisions ?
Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
