[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#957380: istgt: diff for NMU version 0.4~20111008-3.1



On 12 Aug 2020, at 20:16, Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 8:04 PM Sudip Mukherjee
> <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 7:54 PM Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@debian.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 12 Aug 2020, at 19:51, Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> HI Jess,
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 7:21 PM Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@debian.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12 Aug 2020, at 19:15, Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Control: tags 957380 + patch
>>>>>> Control: tags 957380 + pending
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear maintainer,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've prepared an NMU for istgt (versioned as 0.4~20111008-3.1) and
>>>>>> uploaded it to DELAYED/2. Please feel free to tell me if I
>>>>>> should cancel it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks, I've been meaning to do this but it's just not a high enough
>>>>> priority for me. Could you please however use `typedef` instead, as I
>>>>> believe the intent of the code (based on how these ones are written,
>>>>> and what's around it) is to have `ISTGT_LU_TASK_TYPE` be the type name,
>>>>> not `enum ISTGT_LU_TASK_TYPE`? Would you also be willing to file it as
>>>>> a merge request against https://salsa.debian.org/bsd-team/istgt?
> 
> https://salsa.debian.org/bsd-team/istgt has UNRELEASED changes and the
> version is 0.5~20120901-1 there. But since there is no pristine-tar or
> upstream branch, I am unable to generate
> istgt_0.5~20120901.orig.tar.gz to build and test with the proposed
> patch.

Ah, yes and that 0.5 work looks half-baked. I've created a new 0.5
feature branch for that and rewound master (yes, bad practice, I know,
but I highly doubt anyone else has a clone) to the 0.4~20111008-3
release so you should be good to use it as-is now.

Jess


Reply to: