Re: [d-i] remaining packages uploads
Hi,
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Holger,
>
> Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org> (2018-08-13):
> > Hi Cyril, hi all,
> >
> > now that I have did some uploads for d-i packages, mostly with l10n updates,
> > there are some packages left for uploading, which I'm unsure about or which
> > I left out by intend:
> >
> >
> > - arcboot-installer build fails. "no binary artefacts"
> > - s390-dasd build fails. "no binary artefacts"
> > - s390-netdevice build fails. "no binary artefacts"
> > - zipl-installer build fails. "no binary artefacts"
>
> Indeed, I see how one can be surprised at first. It happened to me too a
> few years ago! ;)
>
> Those are only useful (therefore built) on a few architectures. You can
> see that in the Architecture field of their debian/control file. If
> you're looking at l10n changes, (source-)uploading looks good. But maybe
> keep an eye on the build logs to make sure there are no new FTBFSes
> (failure to build from source):
Ok, so I need some more chroots for other architectures, I assume.
That will take me some days I think...
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=arcboot-installer
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=s390-dasd
> etc.
>
> It's a good idea to do so for things you've built locally, but it can
> be a bit of a burden to check all packages… I'll end up seeing what
> packages don't migrate on the long run, so I'll notice anyway. Anyone
> can, looking at the udebs (second part) with an old age:
>
> https://d-i.debian.org/testing-summary.html
>
> > - cdebconf-terminal when comparing 0.33.dsc against 0.34.dsc, there are
> > masses of deletions (not declared in the changelog file;
> > and I cannot find any commit that could have caused this;
> > so this is most probably a wrong way of building the
> > package or the like ?)
>
> Sometimes the previous uploader has an unclean git tree, and include
> some extraneous files, which then show up as deletions. Rebuilding a
> source package from the 0.33 git tag, I see these changes when compared
> against the one in the archive:
>
> aclocal.m4 | 171 --
> config.guess | 1530 ----------------------
> config.sub | 1782 --------------------------
> configure | 4035 -----------------------------------------------------------
> 4 files changed, 7518 deletions(-)
>
> … which you can in turn ignore.
Ok, cdebconf-terminal uploaded.
>
> > - choose-mirror For the next buster d-i alpha release to happen, there seems
> > to be one more upload needed anyway (to update from
> > mirrors.masterlist). So I did not upload just for l10n.
>
> Right, I can do that.
>
> > - console-setup non-trivial changings included
>
> Feel free to upload that one.
console-setup done.
>
> > - flash-kernel non-trivial changings included
>
> Not an expert here, I'd check with Vagrant.
>
> > - lilo-installer non-trivial changes ? (source.lintian-overrides)
>
> Is that the right package?
>
> kibi@armor:~/debian-installer/packages/lilo-installer$ git diff --stat 1.57..
> debian/changelog | 6 ++++++
> debian/control | 4 ++--
> debian/po/he.po | 4 ++--
> debian/po/sv.po | 25 ++++++++++++++-----------
> 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> Either way, we don't really support lilo, so… ;)
The additional change was on "source.lintian-overrides", but since we ignore
different lintian warnings for udebs anyway, that's just one more here ...
Uploaded.
> > - preseed additional changes (mark 'checksum error' strings as
> > translatable, which have been introduced in Stretch
> > development cycle)
>
> I'd defer to l10n-knowledgeable people for that one. :)
The relevant change was proposed by bubulle, so I assume everything is fine
with this?
I will try to get an answer from him on this.
> > - tasksel many other, non-trivial changings included
>
> Right package?
>
> kibi@armor:~/debian-installer/packages/tasksel$ git diff --stat 3.44..
> debian/changelog | 7 +++++++
> debian/po/de.po | 8 +++++---
> debian/po/pt_BR.po | 8 ++++----
> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
I miss-read the changelog. Everything fine here. Uploaded.
Holger
--
Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org>
PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Reply to: