Bug#907826: RFS: gnomint/1.3.0-1 [QA] [RC]
Hello Yavor Doganov,
thanks for your quick followup.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 11:22:23AM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 07:41:18PM +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote:
> > > * debian/patches/gsettings-port.patch: New, migrate from GConf to
> > > GSettings (Closes: #885817).
>
> > With gsettings migration I guess you feel it's unwelcome to have
> > a dependency on gconf2 remaining in buster, but for data conversion
> > the dependency needs to remain until gsettings conversion has shipped
> > in one stable debian release (as a minimum).
>
> I agree completely. Some time ago I asked on the pkg-gnome list
> precisely about this scenario [1] but didn't receive a reply. As the
> situation now is clear and the new maintainer announced gconf is going
> to be shipped in buster, I added explicit dependency on gconf2 and
> removed the comment regarding migration from the patch.
>
> [1] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/2018-August/145477.html
The main problem here is that the gconf2->gsettings migration should
have been done ~ 10 years ago already. Then it wouldn't have been a
problem for buster. Unmaintained packages are a burden which we just
can't allow block progress forever. It might just be better to remove
them from debian and then provide them to potential users on the side.
>
> > > * debian/pixmaps/gnomint.xpm:
> > > * debian/gnomint.menu:
> > > * debian/gnomint.install: Delete.
> >
> > I guess you mean 'Delete' applies to all three above?
>
> Yes, this is a short variant that's widely used in upstream
> changelogs. I changed it to "Delete" followed by "Likewise".
"widely used in upstream changelogs" makes your GNU bias show. ;)
>
> > Maybe would have been better to write them under the same bullet
> > point. (Also I'm not sure about separating the changelog on a
> > per-file basis, rather than on a per-change basis but I guess that's
> > related to personal taste and different people do it differently.)
>
> Well, yes, it is personal taste. I prefer the former concept as it's
> very easy to miss some file or some tiny change with the latter. It
> also corresponds with the GNU ChangeLog requirements so I don't have
> to adapt mentally when I switch between a GNU-style ChangeLog and a
> Debian changelog.
>
> OTOH, the per-change approach is very useful for commit messages.
>
> Thanks for the review. I reuploaded the package with these changes
> and the timestamp updated.
Regards,
Andreas Henriksson
PS. after sending you the previous mail I thought to myself that a
Recommends might be more suitable, so people can remove gconf2 again
after upgrade is finished (and anyone not installing recommends gets
their choice of not migrating their settings).... just thought I'd
mention it...
Reply to: