(CCing everyone who recently touched this...)
I wrote in #1002851:
> FTR, I am looking at this.
Andreas wrote:
> The git repository is missing the NMUs -9.[1-4], and the package could
> be missing the corresponding changes, I haven't checked.
The debian/changelog was also missing the NMUs. I did some dgit
import-dsc to reproduce various elements of the the history, and when
I build it the 10.1 NMU has a similar file list to 9. The changelog
entry for 9.2 NMU says "Move xdelta-config libxdelta2-dev".
After retconning a git history of dgit branches based on the theory
that 10.1 was based on 9 rather than 9.4, I was able to "git merge"
and had only textual or trivial conflicts to resolve in debian/rules
and debian/control.
The result seems to build, after I fixed a multiarch paths problem.
I will be uploading the result shortly.
If I may do a bit of root cause analysis, and make a bit of a plug for
my own tooling:
Debian's "usual~ git usage practices are terrible. They set the
uploader of 10.2 up to make this mistake. So I don't think this
reflects badly on the NMUer in question. The solution is not for us
to all "try harder" or "be more careful"; the solution is for us to
adopt better workflows which are supported by more competent software.
I discussed some of these issues on my blog in September
https://diziet.dreamwidth.org/9556.html
One thing I failed to mention there is that of course if you use the
salsa history you may miss NMUs. I think I will write another blog
post about this :-).
If you want to do an NMU and like to use git, dgit may suit you.
If you use dgit you cannot make this mistake.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
