On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 05:50:12PM +0100, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > Hello Glenn, > > El 12/02/23 a las 08:54, Glenn Strauss escribió: > > > Since you are listed in Uploaders:, this shouldn't be a NMU. I don't > > > understand why lintian doesn't complain about this in this job: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lighttpd/-/jobs/3931309 > > > but don't have the time to investigate that right now. > > > > > > Please, fix the changelog. > > > > changelog updated. Thanks for your guidance. > > Cheers, Glenn > > > > Sorry I was unable to give you more feedback the first time. So I am > iterating. ENOTIME…
Iterating makes progress! Thank you! > I am afraid I cannot parse that entry. What are the changes related to > 1.4.68? I had prepared a release for 1.4.68, and earlier for 1.4.67-2. It was a separate changelog entry, but nmudiff did not work since it detected 1.4.68 (not released) as a prior version. Therefore, I had merged the changelog entries. I've now edited that entry to simply be the combination, without reference to 1.4.68. > * Remove deprecated lighttpd modules. > * Skip installing modules now built into lighttpd. > * Add to not-installed mods now built into lighttpd. > > Is it worth to list those modules? > Is there any impact for the uses to they should be warned via e.g. > debian/NEWS too? There should be no impact for end users. The change impacts packaging. > 2. d/lighttpd.NEWS: > > As lintian complains, this entry relates a release not known by debian: > > lighttpd (1.4.67-2) experimental; urgency=medium > > Do you think NEWS could be updated? Updated to 1.4.69-1, as this will be the release that contains the change. Cheers, Glenn
