Re: fonts-ubuntu_0.83-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 06:34:20AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> I apologize for the urgency, but I would like to get this package
>> accepted into Debian by Wednesday so that it will get into Ubuntu
>> before Ubuntu starts freezing for 18.04 LTS.
>
> Right now this package looks like it is a completely new one, which
> according to you is not true. Esp as you want to have the changes back
> in Ubuntu.
>
> Please add a proper changelog entry (or better the complete changelog)
> and make clear that this adds transitional packages and why. Would
> Ubuntu consider such a package take over without mentioning it in the
> changelog okay?
Thank you for your reply.
My understanding of Debian NEW source package procedure is that it is
preferred that the changelog entry be a simple one-line "Initial
release. Closes: #" because the packaging history before Debian isn't
very relevant to Debian. (On the other hand, you will occasionally see
Ubuntu-specific changelog entries in Debian itself such as the bionic
entries in https://sources.debian.org/src/caja/unstable/debian/changelog/
)
As for Ubuntu, yes, it's very common for Ubuntu-specific changelog
entries to be dropped when packages are synced from Debian to Ubuntu.
This is not a big problem and is alleviated by the existence of pages
like https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+changelog which
gives a more complete changelog for every package that was in Ubuntu.
Proposals
------------
1. Stick with the one-line changelog entry but add LP: #851457 to it
(That is https://launchpad.net/bugs/851457 which Paul mentioned in
this thread earlier today.)
2. Add the complete Ubuntu changelog and change the most recent
changelog to something like
* Initial release for Debian. Closes: #603157
* Rename source and binary packages for Debian font naming conventions.
* Many other minor packaging improvements.
Which proposal do you prefer?
Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha
Reply to: