Hi Félix, Jose: If you read this, pretty please respond to this RFS and if you'd ACK its content. Am Montag, den 19.12.2016, 15:05 +0100 schrieb Félix Sipma: > Control: tags -1 - moreinfo > > Hi Tobias, > > On 2016-12-18 22:24+0100, Tobias Frost wrote: > > (I won't sponsor this because I will not find time to do so before > > the > > Stretch-Window will close, except you'll be very fast in providing > > an > > updated package; Any other DD can/should grab this package if > > wanted) > > I'll try to be as fast as I can :-). > > > some remarks: > > > > - d/changelog does not contain the changelog entry of the NMU > > 1.1.11- > > 1.1 and seems so also not the changes by this NMU > > Sorry about this! I guess I just imported the package from the > maintainer VCS. > I've added the changelog entry, but not the patch, as it is not > needed anymore. Ok. You should always make sure that the VCS reflects that state in the archives, especially if there have been NMUs it happens that the changes have not been pushed. A few reommendations for your d/changelog: - Changelog entries should be sorted accoring to their importance. For example, The "new upstream release" entry is quite important, it should go just below "Non maintainer upload" (which is always the first entry on NMUs) - The ones related to the new upstream release (I guess the removal of the patches is) should be below this "new upstream release" and indented. Like * New upstream release - patch_xyz intergrated upstream, removed. (only of course if this is the reason why it is no longer needed... Otherwise it would be interesting *why* it can be removed, because *that* it has been removed can be derived from the diff. > > - there is no announcement of the NMU on the BTS. Did you try to > > contact the Maintainer? > > As stated in the RFS, I did this privately two weeks before I filled > the RFS. I > can forward it there if needed. That's my first NMU, so I'm not sure > about the > announcement on the BTS. What should I do there? As already written by Alexander, check out https://www.debian.org/doc/m anuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu For the announcement, you might find the nmudiff tool handy. As you can read here, your NMU changes a lot which should not be changes in the scope of a NMU. The problem is that a NMU should only fix (filed) bugs, not do cosmetic stuff. I know you were eager to fix as much as possible, but I guess all the nice fixes has to wait a bit**, so we should focus on the essential changes; lets briefly assess this, I take your changelog as basis (see, verbose changelogs helps....) rdup (1.1.15-0.1) unstable; urgency=medium * Non-maintainer upload. * enable hardening flags out of scope * add missing CPPFLAGS reported by blhc * add missing CFLAGS reported by blhc both: if this is not causing a FTBFS -- out of scope. * add patch to fix manpage formatting warning: 0002-fix-manpage-formatting-warning.patch out of scope * use DPKG_EXPORT_BUILDFLAGS in debian/rules out of scope * add rdup-simple.1 manpage out of scope -- file your manpage as bug * use dh_prep out of scope if not causing FTBFS (does it?); also a why would not hurt here. * add patch fixing spelling errors: 0001-fix-spelling-errors.patch out of scope * bump debhelper compat to 10 out of scope * update Standards-Version to 3.9.8 out of scope (and you would also tell in the changelog if (and what) changes would be required. * add debian/rdup.manpages out of scope * update homepage (Closes: #771478) ok -- as it fixes a bug * update Vcs-Git and Vcs-Browser tags out of scope * add autoreconf to debian/rules out of scope unless it FTBFS (on certain archs) * add debian/watch file out of scope * removed 0001-Delete-set-but-unused-variables.patch (not needed anymore) OK -- it would FTBFS otherwise, I guess. * removed 0004-libarchive.patch (not needed anymore) OK * New upstream version 1.1.15 OK -- though borderline and only in those cirumstances**. Usually this would warrant a NMU to ~ DELAYED/10 minimum, (even if on LowNMU) but then we won't reach Stretch. Lets bend the rules this time (only), I'll take the blame... -- Félix Sipma <felix+debian@gueux.org> Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:30:16 +0100 ** I think the maintainer is inactvie and I started already to investigate (MIA team hat on) > > - the changelog should be more verbose. E.g "remove unused patch" > > -- should list which ones? There are undocumented changes. > > I fixed this in the new package I just uploaded to mentors. thanks for doing that. That helped a lot. > > -- CFLAGS += `dpkg-buildflags --get CPPFLAGS` looks wrong > What should be set there? I added this because I had a warning by > blhc during > the build related to this, and the doc I found about hardening build > flags > recommended to add this. It should probably CPPFLAGS += .... > > (please remove the moreinfo tag once the package is improved. > > Please make sure to try to contact the maintainer, best using the > > BTS) > > I added Jose in Cc: of this email. > > Thanks for your review, and I hope you'll find time to answer my > questions! As said, thanks for your eagerness to bring the package back to the state of the art, this is very appreciated... But the rules for a NMU are that it shouldn't do that much of fixing, (especially not days before the freeze.) Can you prepare something more minimal? And please file your remaining fixes as bugs to the BTS. It would be a shame if they are lost (and with bugs in the BTS we could also fix them per NMU -- but that won't work for Stretch anymore unfortunatly.) -- tobi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part