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

Bug#823187: RFS: icdiff/1.7.3-1



On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 20:49 +0100, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:

> ...

Great!

> I see. Unfortunately the copy of this file that upstream ships does
> not include a license; however a newer version does.
> I have excluded the old version from 1.7.6 using d/copyright's Files-
> Excluded, and then patched the code to use the newer version I
> distribute myself as part of the package. That is, until upstream
> accepts my PR that updates these test files directly:
> https://github.com/jeffkaufman/icdiff/pull/70

Looks like upstream has accepted your PR and released 1.8.1.

> Sure, I guess this is something to be done after the package entered unstable?

It can be done before or after that, there is syntax for ITPs.

> AFAICS icdiff is currently compatible with both Python 2 and Python 3.

Excellent. In case upstream doesn't want to switch to using Python 3 in
the script, I would recommend the Debian version do that.

> True. I guess this is just how upstream understands this term. I can
> surely override dh_installchangelogs not to treat this file as a
> changelog if you want, but TBH I wouldn't have always expected the
> upstream changelog to be a commit log.

No need to do anything, it is a minor issue. I guess the meaning of
ChangeLog has changed from the GNU standards.

https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/NEWS-File.html
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Logs.html

> The other things you mentioned are mostly things concerning upstream.
> I will see if I can fix some of them and supply PRs to them, but I'm
> not sure this is absolutely necessary for first upload.

Ack, they are mostly nice-to-fix things, please do send upstream fixes,
mails or issues for them though.

> Please let me know what you think.

How about packaging 1.8.1 and then I'll upload it?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: