-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Thank you very much for your review Gianfranco. :)
On 10/08/16 11:31, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > 1) really? what about don't care to wheezy anymore? What do you mean? Should backports only be done for jessie now? Here is the backstory: we (SWITCH) are providing Shibboleth packages for Debian and Ubuntu to members of our community (universities and high schools in Switzerland). We chose to support wheezy, jessie, precise, trusty and xenial as you can see in our Shibboleth Service Provider installation guide [1]. To this end, I'm already packaging for all five distributions so why not have Debian benefit from it by contributing backports at the same time? Also, I want our packages to be closer to Debian's to 1) avoid version conflicts 2) reduce the repackaging needed on our end. [1] https://www.switch.ch/aai/guides/sp/installation/ > Did you get in touch with the maintainers? they seems active, one > of them is a DM, and might be able to upload it for you if needed Yes, I'm in touch with Ferenc Wágner. He wasn't able to upload that package yesterday evening. > 2) > > this looks wrong to me. the library has been renamed and > conflicting with the non-v5 version, because of the libstdc++ > transition. > > backporting to jessie and wheezy (where the transition didn't > happen), means you have to revert that change, because otherwise > the package will be uninstallable with all of the reverse > dependencies, because of: Package: libxml-security-c17v5 > > Conflicts: libxml-security-c17, Replaces: libxml-security-c17, Oh good catch! I'll revert the names to c17. > 3) > > also, can the new patch be added to the package in unstable too? - > * [aba87f7] New patch > Remove-PKG_INSTALLDIR-to-build-with-older-pkg-config.patch > > is it a breaking and non-compatible with new pkg-config change? I'll defer to Ferenc on that one. > 4) dpkg-source: warning: failed to verify signature on > /tmp/xml-security-c_1.7.3-3~bpo7+1.dsc > > dpkg-source: error: file /tmp/xml-security-c_1.7.3.orig.tar.gz has > size 909320 instead of expected 897454 > > please use the right orig tarball, thanks. Will do at the next upload. Should I increment the bpo revision for the next upload (bpo7+2)? Cheers, Etienne -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXqwk3AAoJEDtvu5hdVFPu1foQAJ3IYdbeUfC469j5hIY6kATu 6yec4wIr9T4bnuG5jlsbiEThZFdGjMG30Oy82qyyoYvCq5Y3Wf/XycGRSm4yQj8V jz0Mc67pfUvoHDGTEuo/hq3OBod7iWIYp/O2AL1fhxC3OtYs/E6brMVIlSg9EySp lSETydFiyUzYXMbqQhxXO0fUn3Q7hovEluzcFNOEPVSiCe9WH4Zcl1MXXRpq4dv1 ZJdFyB4m4gjClYTTEzHphZANrzpSB+aPtJNabOeI1gGyTOYgFOXcYqP1BzqwEEA1 uFA8zQbGlkWERJWu9zr9G/sGiiV1cbFn9SG/BH/Xr9Y49TGALotqDxP8XE19c7Q5 YULxhc8AFRWZkxvGgktzfcm8gDIi5kk1PSE5dvFUEwFqHtZA9QBkoZEJ4BhfgAKa U3+qYPDYFkdo0nJ+cGNz8GQkTy/4aVhO2V8wvc5r9rS+AbD3Z5Bll20sKMT/JacA RSe5ih2qqtFXipxYGYgT/FbO4YCoAzaenG37PyiSAGILL9rM/eDjB+LHldMiUqvo TlWfhIr5L5bI8Tz9USdDkm3olaW2Ju4+OWNxr8Hvj1YZ3s3ZU8zVB+J8FwWuehiE TInzXCt7fhbF+ub/jDul8Mgn/G+OKkIiHg9h8pmjJ4pXAshZlCIYRArr+4hFxKcR PfJY+Cror7LT894JUHhm =32aN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----