Re: RFS: libpam-abl , bug fix , package is already in Debian
On 01/20/2012 06:28 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Alex Mestiashvili <alex@biotec.tu-dresden.de>, 2012-01-16, 20:16:
>>>> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-abl/libpam-abl_0.4.2-2.dsc
>>>>
>>> The changelog says "debian/control added DM-Upload-Allowed", but
>>> 0.4.2-1 had already this field.
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "other architectures" (in the patch header)?
>>>
>> Hi Jakub ,
>>
>> It failed to built on many archs -
>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libpam-abl
>> With this patch it suppose to be better , but I agree that the
>> description sounds ambiguous.
>> I've uploaded a new version with the corrected description .
>
> Assuming that the patch header was meant to follow DEP-3, then please
> note that the Description field is supposed to be like Description in
> debian/control: there are two parts, short and long one (though the
> latter is optional).
>
> But let's go to more important things. This:
>
> printf(PAD "%s (%lu)\n", buf, (unsigned long)data.size /
> sizeof(time_t));
>
> is surely better than:
>
> printf(PAD "%s (%ld)\n", buf, (long int)data.size / sizeof(time_t));
>
> (which you had in the previous version). But to be pedantically
> correct, it really should be:
>
> printf(PAD "%s (%zu)\n", buf, (size_t)data.size / sizeof(time_t));
>
>> I also modified changelog such a way that line "debian/control added
>> DM-Upload-Allowed" appears in the correct section , but I have some
>> doubts if it is ok to edit old changelog sections .
>
> That's fine with me.
>
I see , your version is better .
But the upstream has released a new version which fixes this and other
problems .
I hope that shape of the package is good enough .
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/libp/libpam-abl/libpam-abl_0.4.3-testing.1.dsc
Thank you for taking care ,
Alex
Reply to: