Bug#1030882: RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-11 [QA] -- C++ API for D-Bus
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, Bastian Germann wrote: Thanks for the QA work! Thank you for that and your support!
Bug#1030882: RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-11 [QA] -- C++ API for D-Bus
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, Bastian Germann wrote: On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 18:58:49 +0100 Thomas Uhle wrote: > + Put libdbus-c++-ecore-1.so.* and libdbus-c++-glib-1.so.* in their own >binary packages libdbus-c++-ecore-1-0 and libdbus-c++-glib-1-0 resp. >to avoid pulling in e.g. Ecore libraries (and their dependencies) on >systems where these libraries are not needed. (Closes: 1018772) It is too late for bookworm. So please target experimental with the new binary packages. If you want the other changes to get into bookworm, you should separate them into their own unstable revision. I have reverted this change. > Should I already change "UNRELEASED" into "unstable" in debian/changelog or > shall I leave this as it is? Yes, please target unstable. Done. I have also updated the packaging copyright and added the missing Upstream-Contact to debian/copyright, bumped the watch file version to 4, and added debian/upstream/metadata. All commits can be reviewed and pulled from https://salsa.debian.org/uhle/dbus-cplusplus . These are the changes since last version: dbus-c++ (0.9.0-11) unstable; urgency=medium * QA upload. * Add 09_fix_build_order_and_linking.patch to change the order in which the libraries are built and to fix the underlinking issue. (Closes: #889114) * Add 10_prevent_deadlock_on_timeout_expiration.patch to prevent a possible deadlock. (Closes: #956114) * Add 11_fix_MessageIter__copy_data.patch to fix copying nested types in dicts and structs. (LP: #1098723) * Add 12_autoconf_update.patch to avoid hard-to-read deprecation warnings that clutter the build logs. * Update 01_host_name_max.patch because stdio.h is needed by perror(). * debian/control: + Add libdbus-1-dev to libdbus-c++-dev's dependencies. (Closes: #1018771) + Fix spelling and capitalization of the package descriptions. + Update Homepage to use https URL. + Mark libdbus-c++-bin as Multi-Arch: allowed. It fixes a regression since version 0.9.0-9. + Add Rules-Requires-Root: no. + Bump Standards-Version to 4.6.2, no changes needed. * debian/copyright: + Add Upstream-Contact, information copied from configure.ac. + Update packaging copyright according to debian/changelog and debian/patches. * debian/watch: Use uscan version 4. * Add debian/upstream/metadata. Best regards, Thomas Uhle
Bug#1030882: RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-11 [QA] -- C++ API for D-Bus
Am 15.02.23 um 19:25 schrieb Thomas Uhle: After reverting the split of the package libdbus-c++-1v5 into seperate packages and assuming the other updates make their way into bookworm just in time, would it then make sense to wait until the release of bookworm to prepare another revision of dbus-c++ with this remaining change targeted for unstable or would it then also be required to upload to experimental at first? No, you can wait after bookworm release date and directly go unstable. Should I already change "UNRELEASED" into "unstable" in debian/changelog or shall I leave this as it is? Yes, please target unstable.
Bug#1030882: RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-11 [QA] -- C++ API for D-Bus
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, Bastian Germann wrote: On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 18:58:49 +0100 Thomas Uhle wrote: + Put libdbus-c++-ecore-1.so.* and libdbus-c++-glib-1.so.* in their own binary packages libdbus-c++-ecore-1-0 and libdbus-c++-glib-1-0 resp. to avoid pulling in e.g. Ecore libraries (and their dependencies) on systems where these libraries are not needed. (Closes: 1018772) It is too late for bookworm. So please target experimental with the new binary packages. If you want the other changes to get into bookworm, you should separate them into their own unstable revision. Thanks a lot for your response and having a look into the changes. After reverting the split of the package libdbus-c++-1v5 into seperate packages and assuming the other updates make their way into bookworm just in time, would it then make sense to wait until the release of bookworm to prepare another revision of dbus-c++ with this remaining change targeted for unstable or would it then also be required to upload to experimental at first? Should I already change "UNRELEASED" into "unstable" in debian/changelog or shall I leave this as it is? Best regards, Thomas Uhle
Bug#1030882: RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-11 [QA] -- C++ API for D-Bus
Dear mentors, I have forgotten to mention that AFAICS libdbus-c++-dev is the only binary package in Debian that depends on the libraries libdbus-c++-ecore-1.so.0 and/or libdbus-c++-glib-1.so.0. So the introduction of the separate packages libdbus-c++-ecore-1-0 and libdbus-c++-glib-1-0 does not have any impact on any other package in Debian (i.e., no transition needed), and the package libdbus-c++-dev is automatically updated by this new version. For further information, please see Debian bug #1018772: https://bugs.debian.org/1018772 Best regards, Thomas Uhle
Bug#1030882: RFS: dbus-c++/0.9.0-11 [QA] -- C++ API for D-Bus
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the dbus-c++ package: * Package name : dbus-c++ Version : 0.9.0-11 Upstream contact : * URL or Web page : http://sourceforge.net/projects/dbus-cplusplus/ * License : LGPL-2.1, GPL-3+ * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dbus-cplusplus Section : libs The source builds the following binary packages: libdbus-c++-1-0v5 - C++ API for D-Bus (runtime library with independent main loop) libdbus-c++-bin - C++ API for D-Bus (utilities) libdbus-c++-dev - C++ API for D-Bus (development package) libdbus-c++-doc - C++ API for D-Bus (documentation) libdbus-c++-ecore-1-0 - C++ API for D-Bus (runtime library with Ecore main loop) libdbus-c++-glib-1-0 - C++ API for D-Bus (runtime library with GLib main loop) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/dbus-c++/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dbus-c++/dbus-c++_0.9.0-11.dsc Changes since the last upload: dbus-c++ (0.9.0-11) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium * QA upload. * Add 09_fix_build_order_and_linking.patch to change the order in which the libraries are built and to fix the underlinking issue. (Closes: #889114) * Add 10_prevent_deadlock_on_timeout_expiration.patch to prevent a possible deadlock. (Closes: #956114) * Add 11_fix_MessageIter__copy_data.patch to fix copying nested types in dicts and structs. (LP: #1098723) * Add 12_autoconf_update.patch to avoid hard-to-read deprecation warnings that clutter the build logs. * Update 01_host_name_max.patch because stdio.h is needed by perror(). * debian/control: + Add libdbus-1-dev to libdbus-c++-dev's dependencies. (Closes: #1018771) + Fix spelling and capitalization of the package descriptions. + Put libdbus-c++-ecore-1.so.* and libdbus-c++-glib-1.so.* in their own binary packages libdbus-c++-ecore-1-0 and libdbus-c++-glib-1-0 resp. to avoid pulling in e.g. Ecore libraries (and their dependencies) on systems where these libraries are not needed. (Closes: 1018772) + Mark libdbus-c++-bin as Multi-Arch: allowed. It fixes a regression since version 0.9.0-9. + Add Rules-Requires-Root: no. + Bump Standards-Version to 4.6.2, no changes needed. Mainly, this new version closes all the remaining bugs in Debian and from Launchpad, and it fixes a regression that was introduced by version 0.9.0-9. Therefore, I think it would be good to have it in Debian 12. I already have uploaded all individual commits to Salsa for an easier review. You can find them at: https://salsa.debian.org/uhle/dbus-cplusplus (forked repo) As this is my very first attempt to upload a package to Debian, I certainly need some kind of guidance. I don't know if I should do a merge request on Salsa for instance. But who would respond then? This package has been orphaned. Best regards, Thomas Uhle
