Re: Package name misspelled in binNMU changelogs
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 04:07:02PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > >> Is there any reasonable way to get this spelling error corrected in the > >> changelogs across all these packages? > > As those are specifically binNMU changelogs, I don't think so. > > You still can do a NMU or send a patch to the maintainer... You cannot do a NMU, or send a patch, for a binNMU changelog. > >> Or is this too minor to be worth bothering with, and something that > >> should be just left to lie as it stands? > > Definitely yes and yes. > That's in the eye of the beholder I'd say. I'd rather have package spellings > cleaned up. In that case you should make changeless sourceful uploads for the affected packages. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Package name misspelled in binNMU changelogs
On 2021-08-25 at 10:22, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2021-08-25 16:07:02, Tomas Pospisek wrote: >> You still can do a NMU or send a patch to the maintainer... > > Any future upload or binNMU will get rid of my typo without any > additional action. So no action is needed, this will resolve eventually in any case, as long as there's ever another update to the affected package? In that case, that entirely addresses my concern, and I apologize for the noise. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Package name misspelled in binNMU changelogs
On 2021-08-25 16:07:02, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > On 25.08.21 15:23, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 09:19:34AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > >> Is there any reasonable way to get this spelling error corrected in the > >> changelogs across all these packages? > > As those are specifically binNMU changelogs, I don't think so. > > You still can do a NMU or send a patch to the maintainer... Any future upload or binNMU will get rid of my typo without any additional action. Cheers > > >> Or is this too minor to be worth bothering with, and something that > >> should be just left to lie as it stands? > > Definitely yes and yes. > That's in the eye of the beholder I'd say. I'd rather have package spellings > cleaned up. > > *t > -- Sebastian Ramacher
Re: Package name misspelled in binNMU changelogs
On 25.08.21 15:23, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 09:19:34AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: >> Is there any reasonable way to get this spelling error corrected in the >> changelogs across all these packages? > As those are specifically binNMU changelogs, I don't think so. You still can do a NMU or send a patch to the maintainer... >> Or is this too minor to be worth bothering with, and something that >> should be just left to lie as it stands? > Definitely yes and yes. That's in the eye of the beholder I'd say. I'd rather have package spellings cleaned up. *t
Re: Package name misspelled in binNMU changelogs
On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 09:19:34AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > Is there any reasonable way to get this spelling error corrected in the > changelogs across all these packages? As those are specifically binNMU changelogs, I don't think so. > Or is this too minor to be worth bothering with, and something that > should be just left to lie as it stands? Definitely yes and yes. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Package name misspelled in binNMU changelogs
I'm not sure if this is worth giving any attention to, but it's the sort of thing that's going to keep bothering me at a mild level if nothing is done about it, so I figure I might as well at least ask. Over the period since the release, I've seen quite a few packages show up in testing with an automated-looking changelog entry along the lines of: * Binary-only non-maintainer upload for [arch]; no source changes. * Rebuild to drop dependency on libgdk-puxbif2.0-0 This has the vowel-transposition spelling error of "puxbif" instead of "pixbuf". There are currently 70 changelog entries of that form on my computer; how many other packages might be affected I don't know. If this were a simple spelling error in the changelog wording, I'd probably just ignore it. Since it's referencing the name of another package, however, that doesn't seem quite right; at the very least, it's going to make looking for changes which reference that other package harder. If I saw a spelling error like this in the changelog for just one single package, I'd probably file a wishlist bug report against that package to request that the shipped changelog be retroactively updated to correct the error, and leave it at that. Since the number of affected packages (and, I suspect, source packages) is so sizable, however, that doesn't seem entirely reasonable; not only would that be a lot of tiny wishlist bugs, even identifying the set of affected packages isn't something I'm in a position to do without what to me is a noticeable degree of effort. Is there any reasonable way to get this spelling error corrected in the changelogs across all these packages? Or is this too minor to be worth bothering with, and something that should be just left to lie as it stands? -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
