Bug#877610: RFS: libexif/0.6.21-2.1 [NMU]
Hi Adam,
Thanks for your email.
On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03 AM +1100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> This drastically exceeds what is appropriate for a NMU without the
> maintainer's consent. Sure, the package looks neglected, but if you're
> taking steps to salvage it, it wouldn't be a NMU (at least without an
> explanation). And a NMU requires following the procedure.
This puts me in a catch-22 situation, doesn't it? While I agree that there are
a large number of changes, if I don't update the package standards or fix
lintian issues, someone on Debian Mentors will (most likely) reject the
package until the work is done.
Also, I have read through section 5.11 of the Developer's Reference [1] several
times, but I cannot see which part of the NMU procedure I have missed.
> The package is marked as team maintained, but neither do I see you among
> the PhotoTools team, nor did you claim a team upload.
That's correct. I'm not part of the PhotoTools team.
> Thus, while your changes are welcome, I see confusion wrt what you're
> trying to do here. Options include:
> * a traditional "hostile" NMU: targetted fixes only, posting a NMU diff is
> required prior to upload
I sent the diff and intent to NMU to #786562 a few days ago [2]. That mail
was automatically sent to the PhotoTools mailing list. I'm not sure what you
mean by "hostile".
> * an authorized (ie, with maintainer's consent) NMU: everything goes
I sent an email to Emmanuel Bouthenot a week ago asking whether he or
Frederic Peters were able to update the package with the upstream
CVE patches and Multi-Arch: same field. I also flagged my intent to NMU
if they could not update the package. He did not respond.
I also tried contacting him via PM on OFTC -- again, no response.
> * a team upload: you'd need to talk with folks of the PhotoTools team, then
> it's no longer a NMU (mark as "Team upload", regular version number)
Unfortunately, their mailing list seems largely abandoned. But I'll try again.
I do know a developer maintaining another of the team's packages, but he
doesn't have upload rights for libexif.
> * a non-team salvage: doesn't look appropriate as other packages of that
> team look alive
Agreed.
> That lintian override is wrong, only one paragraph can apply to a file.
> I haven't done any real review other than a quick glance, thus there might
> be more issues.
The debian/copyright file follows the usual structure, with the exception of
a few paragraphs, which refer to the same file. For example:
Files: po/en_GB.po
Copyright: 2009, Bruce Cowan
License: LGPL-2.1+
[...]
Files: po/en_GB.po
Copyright: 2010, Robert Readman
License: LGPL-2.1+
This causes lintian to complain that the first occurrence is not used.
I'm not sure how to fix this, as in one case, the licence is different.
[1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786562
--
Hugh McMaster
Reply to: