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

Bug#1012200: RFS: rush/2.2+dfsg-1 [ITA] -- restricted user shell

Am 17.06.22 um 10:30 schrieb Bo YU:

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.diff


Please 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 the
different 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?


See, this explanation is what I wanted to see. Yes, please drop them.
It is enough just to include "(applied upstream)" in the two changelog entries.

I do not know why the license change was included but we do not need to know when we do not keep the patch.


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:)


The +dfsg suffix means that files are removed from upstream source to comply with the DFSG.
As that is no longer necessary and we can include the full source, the suffix has to be dropped.
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`?


Yes.
Reply to: