Bug#968504: RFS: aqemu/0.9.2-2.4 [NMU] [RC] -- Qt5 front-end for QEMU and KVM
On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 04:33:01PM +0200, Alexis Murzeau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your review :)
>
> Le 26/08/2020 à 12:39, Tobias Frost a écrit :
> > Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> >
> > Hi Alexis,
> >
> > this is an incomplete review, 'cause I ran out of time, lunch break was not long
> > enough :-(
> >
> > - This should be not an NMU but an QA-Upload so you need to Set the maintainer
> > to the QA group, as explained here:
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#orphaning-a-package
> >
> > [...]
> Ok, I've put sources with imported debsnap history in https://salsa.debian.org/debian/aqemu.
> >
> > - "(For: #957003)"
> > Please close the bug in the changelog; it can always be reopened if it fails
> > again…)
>
> Ok
>
> >
> > - I'm not sure about dropping the Depends on qemu entirely. Does aqemu work
> > without qemu installed? If not, you probably need to follow the recommendation
> > in #966261
> > and add a Depend on qemu-system-XXX | qemu-system-XXX | … (listing all archs).
> >
>
> I'm wondering if I should put these as a Recommends instead.
> I'm thinking about cases where someone would want to use a different qemu not packaged,
> like a custom one or a manually compiled one.
>
> But I'm not sure I should handle these cases, what do you think ?
I wouldn't consider use case not using official debian packages too much…
Instead, lets look what policy says on Depends (omitting non relevant paragraphs)
The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is required for
the depending package to provide a significant amount of functionality.
(I can't judge because I don't know aqemu, but my feeling is Recommends would
be too weak)
>
> >
> > There were other bugs on the packages too. Did you try to triage them?
> > (It would be nice to at least report them to upstream, but that's not a show
> > stopper for the sponsoring)
>
> I'm not using aqemu myself, but some of them or probably upstream, and maybe fixed
> since they were reported, but newer versions (0.9.6+) are qualified as not yet
> stable by upstream.
> I will see if they were already reported or still relevant
> (some of them were created in 2012).
Cool, thanks for your help here
> >
> > Many thanks for contributing to Debian!
> >
>
> Thanks for your review :)
To avoid a dead-lock, you say when you're ready? (by removing the moreinfo tag)
--
tobi
Reply to: