Re: RFS: mscgen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag wrote:
> On 09/07/13 23:18 +0200, Niels Thykier said ...
>>> - You've modified the .orig.tar.gz to remove a file that doesn't have license
>>> information. In such cases, you should indicate that in the version number
>>> of the package (by adding a +dfsg1 or such to it). See also - lintian-info
>>> for the tag dfsg-version-with-period.
>> Done - I used "+dfsg-<debian-number>" since "+dfsg<debian-version>"
>> wanted me to rename the "orig" to include the deb-version (I assumed it
>> would make me unable to recycle the orig in case of a debian specific
>> upgrade).
>
> I don't think you can use "+dfsg<debian-revision>", it would either be
> "+dfsg-<debian-revision>" (like you did) or "+dfsgX-<debian-revision>" where X
> starts from "0". And you will have to modify X only if find out later that
> you did some mistake in cleaning up for DFSG freeness. For other debian
> specific upgrades on the same version of the package, you will increment the
> <debian-revision>.
>
>>> - Please also include a small README.source documenting the above and
>> Added, I decided to include (most of) the dpatch README.source (it
>> seemed to be written for this purpose).
>
> I tend to just include a pointer on the dpatch README.source rather than
> duplicate that information. That way people always get the latest info on the
> dpatch usage (if that changes).
>
>> When I read up on this I noticed that the upgrade checklist [1] uses the
>> word "should" whereas the standard policy [4.14] uses "recommendation" [2].
>
> Ah, I did not notice that. Perhaps file a "minor" debian-policy bug?
>
Actually I think the wording "should" is intentionally used for
"recommended" (or at least not "required"). The upgrade checklist
contains a few lines that "upgrades a should to a must" - like this one [1]:
* Tighten some format requirements for changelog files from a should
to a must. [4.4]
>>>> Though such a change would require that the version number of mscgen was
>>>> lowered. How would I go about doing that in regards to my changelog?
>>>> Merge all entries so far into 0.15-5 (updating svn-releases to patches)?
>>> Yes, you could do that. As as aside, I don't mind (and infact prefer it) that
>>> you don't add a new changelog stanza every time a new revision of the package
>>> is uploaded to mentors.debian.net
>>>
>>> The Priority stills seems to be extra in v0.16-1. But this will not be a
>>> blocker for our upload.
>> Right, forgot to move that over to the new upstream release build. Fixed
>> it (again).
>
> I suppose you could've avoided this minor detail if the package was in a VCS
> :-). Also, the intention behind a new dch stanza for each upload is to show
> changes from the previous revision. This becomes redundant if the package is
> in VCS. It also makes life easier for a sponsor to review what changed.
>
>> It is uploaded on mentors again (0.16+dfsg-1).
>
> Uploaded, thank you for your work. Hereafter, do contact me directly for
> sponsorship of updates to the mscgen package.
>
Will do and thanks for sponsoring.
> I could not include the changelog for 0.15-1 in the changes file (the -v
> option to dpkg-buildpackage needs a valid version number that is present
> _before_ all the stanzas that one wants to include in the .changes file). You
> will have to mark the bug pending now (see the bts program in the devscripts
> package). And you will also have to close that bug when the package gets out
> of the NEW queue.
>
Alright, I already tagged it pending and will keep my eyes open for when
it reaches the mirrors.
> Giridhar
>
~Niels
[1] /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz - under 3.8.1.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpdoTYACgkQVCqoiq1Ylqzl/QCeJNhtEBqsYYwv+HGSI0i7Ze4h
CwMAoNNbRd5FcPRtjEi5aJCTutWovatx
=zdyf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: