Hi Emilio,
> This looks fine to me, though is there any reason why you didn't use the
> maintainer-provided bullseye debdiff from #1091198 as pointed in the
> other thread?
Good question. But a handful of very minor reasons — I was creating
the patch for all of the ELTS suites at the same time so low-key special-
casing the treatment of bullseye by applying a debdiff from a closed,
defunct (and potentially stale!) BTS bug was simply little more hassle
for me personally. I could also be 100% sure of versioning the update
correctly this way as well. This last is IMHO often an issue in
maintainer-provided updates for (E)LTS.
More to the point, however, Mark's debdiff was accidentally created
the other way around: note that it inverts the + and -, and thus its
description of initialising a variable is at odds with the apparent
removal of a variable initialisation.
All so very very easily worked around with -R, but far more
straightforward (and also crucially safer) to recreate that one-line
patch from scratch.
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` lamby@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-