Bug#1024991: RFS: jamulus/3.9.1+dfsg-1 [QA] -- real-time collaborative music session client and server
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 1:59 AM Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 08:52:48PM +0800, Bo YU wrote:
> > * Package name : jamulus
> > Version : 3.9.1+dfsg-1
> > Upstream contact : https://sourceforge.net/p/llcon/discussion/
> > * URL : https://jamulus.io/
> > * License : GPL-2.0+ and MIT-STK, CC0, GPL-2.0+, BSD3-OPUS, famfamfam-flag-icons
> > * Vcs : https://evolvis.org/plugins/scmgit/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=alioth/jamulus.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master
> > Section : sound
>
> > jamulus (3.9.1+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium
> > .
> > * QA upload.
> > * Set Debian QA as maintainer. See #1023670.
> > * New upstream version 3.9.1.
> > * Update d/copyright:
> > - adjust Files-Excluded due to repack.
> > - update file-pattern due to upstream change.
> > * Add support for riscv64. (Closes: #1024984)
> > * Rebase all patches.
> > * Adjust d/source/lintian-overrides
> > * Update execute_after_dh_auto_install
>
> Hi!
>
> .--====[ debian/source/lintian-overrides ]
> # old repo
> jamulus source: orphaned-package-not-maintained-in-debian-infrastructure
> `----
>
> This is not a false positive -- an orphaned package's packaging repo is
> supposed to be moved to some place that's writeable by people other than
> the previous maintainer.
Yes. I think the *right* place is debian namespace on salsa. But I do not have
writable permission about it, so I did not change vcs field. In fact I
put it under
my namespace on salsa when packaging.
>
> Of course, there's no need to fix everything, especially not in a QA upload
> where the only expectation is for the new version to be better than the old
> one -- but hiding issues is no good.
Agree. I do not intend to hide the issue here just think the lintian error is a
false positive in this case.:). Another factor is that from uploading myself
packages experience, lintian error will not be accepted even lintian warning
by my sponsor. So I have to try to erase it.
The most challenge to updating it for me is repacking it to obey DFSG. The
workflow for such packages is unclear to me. But I have mastered some points
from the package.
Thanks again for pointing it. I saw Boyuan[0] has helped to upload the package
to Debian archive. So I think I can close the reportbug.
BR,
Bo
[0]: https://tracker.debian.org/news/1392012/accepted-jamulus-391dfsg-1-source-into-unstable/
>
>
> Meow!
> --
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Quis trollabit ipsos trollos?
> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Reply to: