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

Bug#956414: RFS: eudev/3.2.9-7+debian2: [ITP] /dev/ and hotplug management daemon

On Sat, 2020-05-02 at 18:27 -0400, Boyuan Yang wrote:
> Hi Svante,
> (see bottom)
> On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:18:26 +0200 Svante Signell <
> svante.signell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi again,
> > 
> > I uploaded a new version, 3.2.9-7+debian2 which fixes many lintian
> > warnings:
> >   * binary-control-field-duplicates-source
> >   * out-of-date-standards-version
> >   * package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version
> >   * xc-package-type-in-debian-control
> >   * rules-requires-root-missing
> >   * hardening-no-bindnow
> I do not intend to do a complete review but there seems still to be
> many issues in the source package your provided:
> * I'm not sure why you are using the version string "3.2.9-
> 7+debian2". Actually I am really curious about where did the digit
> seven (7) come from.

The -7 is due to that the package origin is from Devuan, as written
in debian/control: Origin: Devuan
> I can only find version 3.2.9 on upstream website and there is no
> seven... Please adjust the version string so that it complies with
> deb-verison(7) [1].
> * The lintian warning out-of-date-standards-version still exists. The
> most up-to-date Standards-Version is 4.5.0, as you can find in Debian
> Policy.


> * The lintian warning package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version still
> exists. The most up-to-date debhelper compat version is v13, not v11.
> Please read details at [2].


> * It seems that you are providing two udeb binary packages. Since
> udeb packages are only used by debian-installer (d-i), could you
> please coordinate with the d-i team [3] and ask them whether such
> udeb package is needed? My guess is that this is probably not
> necessary at this time. If the answer turns out to be yes, please let
> me know their reply.

Removed build of the udeb packages, by setting
DEB_BUILD_PROFILES="noudeb" in debian/rules. udebs are probably only
needed for Devuan.

> * Almost all binary package entries in debian/control have this line:
> Provides: udev (= 1:${source:Version}) This is almost surely
> incorrect; the ${source:Version} substvar refers to the source
> version of eudev, not udev. This line will likely not work.

I don't know how to correctly add the Provides: entries. When built
that line expands to e.g. Provides: libudev1 (= 1:3.2.9-7+debian2).
Note the epoch, which udev does not have.

Additionally in Devuan we have transitional packages for udev,
libudev1, libudev-dev with an epoch and the eudev packages conflicts
with these Devuan versions.

> * Package eudev still depends on s390-tools on arch:s390, however
> Debian no longer ships packages under s390. Are you referring to
> s390x?


> Since eudev is supposed to be a replacement of udev, we surely need
> more extensive review on this source package. I see that you listed
> Adam Borowski in the Uploaders list. Adam, can you continue with the
> package review as a prospective co-maintainer?

Thank you very much for your comments. Do I really need to upload an
increased +debianX version for each upload??

Maybe you are interested in being sponsor for this package? I have not
obtained any comments from Adam yet.


Reply to: