On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Arnaud <arnaud.rebill...@collabora.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 02/20/2018 12:08 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
>
> Are you certain that this commit is actually a requirement, or just
> happens to be the latest version the containerd people tried?
>
>
> It's just the version that is vendored by containerd. I assumed they used
> it for a good reason, that's all. Definitely not certain that it's needed.
>
> Did you test the version currently in Debian and run into issues?
>
>
> No I didn't try, right now I'm just trying to package and bump everything
> required by containerd, then package containerd, then test the whole thing.
>
>
> I’m not saying importing new upstream versions isn’t a good idea, I’m just
> trying to make sure you don’t do any extra work you don’t want to do.
>
>
> I get your point. I thought the best approach was to bump every dependency
> first, then package the missing dependencies. But maybe it's better to
> package what's missing first, then try containerd, and then bump
> dependencies to newer versions if it's really a need. Especially if I bump
> to a snapshot version like in the current case, it's always better to avoid
> that and stick to official releases, when they exist.
>
>
>
>> - the current debian package for urfave-cli is on anonscm.debian.org. So
>> here I had to create a repository on salsa.debian.org. Maybe you don't
>> like that and already have a procedure for migrating packages from
>> anonscm to salsa.
>>
>
> While it is fine to create new repositories on salsa, we should either add
> this repository to the rewritemap ASAP (+cc aviau) or don’t move it for the
> time being.
>
>
> What is the rewritemap ?
>

See https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/AliothRewriter/tree/master for details.


> Is Alexandre Viau the person in charge of migrating go packages to salsa
> in general ?
>

Yes.


>
> For the repository we're talking about right now, I understand there's no
> need to bump the version right now, as long as I'm not sure it's needed.
>
> Should I just delete it, or at least take it out of the go packages group,
> and keep it as a personal repo ?
>

Yes please (whichever of the two you prefer).


>
>
>  Overall, your changes look good to me. Let me know which way you prefer
> to proceed regarding repository location, fix the changelog, and I can
> upload it for you.
>
>
> Let's just wait until we're sure this version bump is really needed, if
> you're ok with that.
>

Sure!


>
> Thanks again for all the thorough feedback !
>
>   Arnaud
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Michael
_______________________________________________
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Reply via email to