Hello Johannes, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> writes: > Quoting Micha Lenk (2025-12-05 16:01:20) >> d/p/reform-power-daemon.patch certainly is a good idea, but it isn't >> mentioned in debian/changelog. Please document all the changes you did in >> debian/changelog. > > I don't understand the above. The top changelog for my upload looks like this: > > 1 reform-tools (1.82-2~bpo13+1) trixie-backports; urgency=medium > 2 > 3 * Rebuild for trixie-backports. > 4 > 5 -- Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> Sat, 29 Nov 2025 07:50:37 +0100 > 6 > 7 reform-tools (1.82-2) unstable; urgency=medium > 8 > 9 * enable and start reform-power-daemon by default upon installation and > 10 upgrade > 11 > 12 -- Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <josch@debian.org> Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:22:34 +0100 > > The topmost entry mentions the rebuild for backports and the one below is the > entry about reform-power-daemon. What is the problem? I'm not a ftpmaster, but I think it's pretty clear that Micha Lenk is saying that 1.82-2 would have been rejected if it had to pass NEW. It looks like you maintain the package in unstable, so this means you can make a 1.82-3. In that changelog entry you write the requested information and make it clear that these actions should have been part of the Debian revision of this package that introduced "reform-power-daemon.patch". Anyone who reads /usr/share/doc/reform-tools/[Debian.]changelog.gz, or who runs apt changelog reform-tools, or who runs apt source and then reads the changelog provided there needs to know about "reform-power-daemon.patch". This will only take a line or two and shouldn't take more than a couple of seconds to fix. When the package in testing is in a sufficiently good state then I'm confident that a backport of it will be accepted. Regards, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature