Hi, On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 09:42:38AM +0200, Bastian Germann wrote:
Am 17.06.22 um 09:20 schrieb Bo YU:* drop debian/patches/intprops.patch * drop debian/patches/format_security.diffPlease do not expect a possible sponsor to look at your changes when you have not addressed his previous comments. You have not included an explanation about the patches.
I know the problem is where:
* drop debian/patches/intprops.patch
I do not understand why the patch from bunk[0] fix the license part in intprops.h? And the code is applied into upstream[1]. Now I think thedifferent is
``` /* -*- buffer-read-only: t -*- vi: set ro: */ /* DO NOT EDIT! GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY! */ /* intprops.h -- properties of integer types Copyright (C) 2001-2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ... by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. ... You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License ``` So the patch will still remained?
* drop debian/patches/format_security.diff
The patch is applied into upstream[2]. So the patch can be dropped?
Also, the version number does not take a +dfsg without repacking.
This is a quesion that confuses me, because i have lintian info also.how to understand with "repacking" here? I want to adopt the package with following the original debian version name rule(2.2+dfsg-1).
it seems that i do not got it here:)
When you have provided a version that explains the patch removal or has rebased them on the new version please untag moreinfo from this bug.
Ok, like `tags 1012200 - moreinfo`? thank you, Bastian Bo
[0]: https://salsa.debian.org/vimerbf-guest/rush/-/blob/debian/1.8+dfsg-1.1/debian/patches/intprops.patch [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/vimerbf-guest/rush/-/blob/upstream/2.2/gnu/intprops.h [3]: https://salsa.debian.org/vimerbf-guest/rush/-/blob/upstream/2.2/lib/wordsplit/wordsplit.c#L2889 -- Best Regards,
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature