Re: liferea: diff for NMU version 1.8.6-1+nmu1
> Why did you update libtool-dont-rearange-as-needed patch without any
> functional change?
While inspecting / testing if it was still needed, I may have inadvertently updated the date on the file. No changes in the file, I have restored the original file in preparation for my next attempt.
> You did not allow the maintainer of this package much time to review
> most of your patches, but than again, this package has some history of
> new releases via NMU. Did you check the freeze policy [1]?
The maintainer Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <rodrigo@debian.org>. Is on the "low-threshold" list. So I figured I could save him some work by doing the NMU myself. Although, this is my first NMU. I thought it would be a good opportunity to learn the NMU process.
> Did you also try to fix the other important bugs? Did you comment
> on those?
Yes and yes. Some of the other important bugs are very old (years) and I wasn't able to reproduce them. Some of them, I'm waiting for people to get back to me on if they still impact the latest version of liferea. The rest probably should be forwarded to upstream as I don't think it's an easy fix
if they're still valid bugs.
> Are really all these bugs of the proper severity? I.e. bug 692007 does not seem to
> qualify in my view (although *you* marked it as important later, but
> when you submitted you did not think it important). You can try, but I
> am unsure if this would qualify for an unblock (maybe in addition to the
> rest).
In my opinion, they are. Originally I was using this software with only a few feeds. When I added more feeds, I realized this was a more serious bug as it then started spamming the user's desktop with notifications on feeds that have already been read. Further, they keep triggering every refresh so it's pretty much endless. I suppose the user could just turn the notifications off for the app, but I thought it better to just fix it. Liferea is a news reader and people use it to get live updates to newstreams via RSS so I personally wouldn't use the package without the patch so I thought it should be "important".
> Some of your patches change unnecessary things such as whitespace,
> capitalization or copyright dates. If I was release manager I would
> prefer you leave the changes to the functional parts. You can add the
> copyright notice with the date to the header of the patch instead, if
> you want. I think added comments to added code are fine.
I pretty much took those slightly bloated (with comments/whitespace) patches directly from upstream. I wasn't sure if it was ok to simply not include parts of upstream patches. I could trim them down a bit and move the copyright to the patch header if that's preferred or makes it easier to see what has changed.
> Why add a patch that you don't use, probably a mistake. (google_source-*)
>
Yes, mistake. I started a patch with that name, but then I imported the upstream patch file and just used that instead.
> Please add a nice patch header to all your patches [2].
OK, I will do this for my next attempt.
Also, from IRC I was told:
1. NMU Version should be 1.8.6-1.1 which I will fix in my next attempt.
2. Was missing some # in the changelog for bug#s which I will fix for my next attempt.
3. I sent the bug report to the package itself using nmudif instead of to sponsorship-requests (using the mentors template) which I will fix for my next attempt.
Reply to: