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

Re: Review of ucf 3.0043+deb11u1



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
       `-


Reply to: