Bug#1068436: transmission RFS
Hi,
> Well, given that the main maintainer dropped themselves from the
> debian/control file, I think the package can be freely adopted,
> keeping Leo Antunes on of course in case he reappears. I'll drop the
> two of them a note asking for objections, and assuming there are none,
> I'd suggest we go ahead with that. What do you think? This would be:
>
> Maintainer: Leo Antunes <costela@debian.org>
> Uploaders: Alexandre Rossi <niol@zincube.net>,
> Barak A. Pearlmutter <bap@debian.org>
>
> and would allow "proper" uploads, not just NMUs.
Perfect, the end goal being having transmission back in testing ASAP.
> I merged your "fix build on bookworm" patch, but the package still
> builds fine on a chroot on my own machine, and fails to build on
> salsa,
> https://salsa.debian.org/bap/transmission/-/pipelines
Should be fixed, d/control syntax issue.
> If you feel like preparing a serious 4.0.5-2 candidate with
> *everything* you think belongs included, rather than just a minimal
> NMU, that would be great!
Done.
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/transmission/transmission_4.0.5-2.dsc
Changes can be reviewed on salsa:
https://salsa.debian.org/niol/transmission
> What I meant with the pre-built javascript business was that it's more
> robust to set things up so *if* the tools to do so are available, that
> stuff is rebuilt. But if not, e.g., if someone is building for a small
> platform or porting or just wants to build a local copy and doesn't
> want to install that stuff, it would use pre-built files instead. This
> also makes it easier for porters. This seems like pretty much what
> upstream advocates in web/README.md, except the idea is to automate
> it. With that stuff in place, it's a lot easier to argue that using
> the prebuilt files under some particular circumstance (like some
> package is missing from Debian for the moment) is not serious enough
> of an issue to delay progression to testing etc.
Ok, this feels against DFSG in the sense of including prebuild files
in source, and upstream does it, so I do not see clearly a role for
Debian regarding this. Do you mean removing the Files-Excluded stanzas in
d/copyright?
> And yes, your "proper" cmake-test-based -latomic fix is the "right"
> way to do it, unlike the sleazy hack I put in debian/rules.
Incuded your hack for the mean time, and will initiate work with upstream
today to have a proper fix in place.
Thanks,
Alex
Reply to: