Hi Simon, On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 11:01:57AM +0100 Simon Josefsson wrote: > Hi > > Thank you! I built and uploaded this now. thanks a lot! > Since it is a NEW upload, I suppose there are no reverse-build > considerations?! I can fix cosign to use your package, assuming it > builds with your new package (I did not test, did you?) instead of the > old package name. Oh, I hadn't thought about reverse-build dependencies, thanks for the reminder! I successfully built cosign on amd64 also with golang-gitlab-api-client-go/0.123.0-1 now, but I have not done any runtime testing except calling 'cosign --help'. Will you push a debian/0.123.0-1 tag after the package is accepted? (Or am I supposed to do that?) > Is the step after that to request removal of the old package? I have no experience with golang package renames. If cosign is really the only other user (except glab), I'd guess, that removal would make sense, but I am still a go-packaging-greenhorn. > Why did you use dh-golang instead of dh-sequence-golang? I thought the > migration should be TOWARDS dh-sequence-golang, not from it? And stop > using --with=golang. Doesn't modern dh-make-golang do this? This can > be fixed once it is in the archive, though, unless I'm wrong. That's my fault. I confused myself by accidentally using an old dh-make-golang version from stable. I am going going to fix up. Does it make sense to finalize packaging of glab 1.52.0-1 (using golang-gitlab-api-client-go), or should I delay that until the package is accepted? Kind regards, Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature