Bug#892591: RFS: pinball/0.3.1-14 [ITA]
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 09:16:13AM +0100, Innocent De Marchi wrote:
> * Package name : pinball
> Version : 0.3.1-14
> Changes since the last upload:
>
> * New Maintainer (Closes: #891762).
> * Set Rules-Requires-Root: binary-targets.
> * Added homepage field on debian/control.
> * Added description on some patch files.
> * Fix spelling error in patch description on 06_missing_cstddef.patch
> file.
> * Removed patch file not-mentioned in series:
> replace-sp-with-opensp.patch.
> * Added hardering flags on debian/rules.
> * Removed and rewrite 03_desktop.patch file.
> * Removed pinball.menu file.
> * Added secure URI on debian/watch.
> * Completed rewrite debian/copyright file.
> * Changed negated list of architectures by dpkg architecture
> wildcards. Thanks to Robert Millan (Closes: #634705).
> * Close old fix bug (Closes: #642477).
This is irrelevant to the version you're uploading, so there's no point in
claiming it's a change done right now.
You can instead send any mail to 642477-done@bugs.debian.org; preferably
with the first line being:
Version: 0.3.1-13.1
so the BTS knows what versions the bug applies to.
> * Adds OpenGL constraint on debian/control. Thanks to Yann Dirson
> (Closes: #150082).
> * Added one new patch (pinball-cpp) to close more bugs
> (Closes: #555251, #555256, #450763, #858627).
But _what_ does this patch fix?
I see that it squashes a bunch of unrelated changes. This is not nice but
might be acceptable if the changes are somewhat entangled and it would cost
you too much work to separate them. Yet even then, the bugs are unrelated.
It's not the act of adding a patch that's interesting, what an user or an
contributor would want to know is: "this breakage has been dealt with".
> * Addet on new patch (menu-cpp) to activate left Alt
> key to close program (Closes: #442809).
> * Changed the storage directory of the high scores (new patch
> table-cpp).
> * Added one new patch (add-autor-to-AUTHORS) to add author name on
> upstream AUTHORS file (it was empty).
Patch file names are probably superfluous -- if someone wants to dig that
deeply, it's trivial to find that part.
> I have not updated the standard version: with debhelper> 9, the
> compilation fails due to the libtoolize system. I think we have to do a
> deep update of this issue.
Debhelper in no case checks standards-version, it's all about compat level.
libtool failing is quite nasty: it means the package uses shipped outdated
autoconfage, which, among other possible problems, will cause build failure
when a new architecture is added. But it's not an immediate problem: you
don't need to fix every bug in your first update.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.
Reply to: