On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:44:53 +0100, Alex Muntada wrote: > this is the first time I have to upload something to Debian > archive (I have some previous experience with Launchpad PPAs) Yay! (I've just set the acl to allow you to upload libdbd-oracle-perl.) > * I built the amd64 package only since it took me a long while > to get Oracle 12 running on unstable. Can I upload amd64 now > and i386 later if I manage to eventually build it too? Yes, you can do a binary-only build on other architectures later and upload the .debs. > How > should I document that only amd64 is available right now? I don't think is necessary or possible to "document" this. It just will be this way :) > Please, note that it was removed[1] from testing on Aug 2014 > so I feel like having amd64 at least would improve the current > statu quo. Agreed. > * Would it be better to upload to experimental first? No tests > failed in DBD::Oracle, some were skipped though. I don't think so; the current package in unstable is not usable, so everything else will be better. And my experience is that packages in experimental hardly get any usage. -- If you know that somebody will actively test it, the situation might be different. > * Should I add myself to Uploaders in d/control or there's no > need since the current maintainer is our team and I'm going > to make a team upload anyway? It's not strictly needed but I think it makes sense in this case since you are the one handling this package now and hopefully in the future :) (And then you don't need to add the "Team upload." line to d/changelog.) > * NMG says[2] that "urgency shouldn't be changed to anything > higher than low." but d/changelog already has urgency=medium. Sounds like the NMG is outdated; since some time, dch uses medium per default (except for new packages), after the release team changed their default, IIRC. > Should I lower it or keep it at medium? In general I'd keep it, unless we want to give it 10 instead of 5 days of testing in unstable before it reaches testing. > * I guess that it doesn't make sense to enable autopkgtest in > libdbd-oracle-perl since it has a Depends that's not in the > archive (oracle-instantclient12.1-basic or basiclite). Ack. > * Finally, bug 759324[3] is about this package having conflicts > with perl 5.20. I suppose I should not close that bug and > eventually make a backport of the package to jessie, which > still uses perl 5.20 and we'll be around for a while? I would close the bug in the changelog, for several reasons: - In general because the BTS is good at correlating versions to bugs. - In this case the bug title is a bit misleading, it should more be "libdbd-oracle-perl needs a manual rebuild against the perl version in unstable" or "libdbd-oracle-perl is uninstallable in testing/unstable", and this problem will be fixed by the upload. - The fact that libdbd-oracle-perl is not in stable is a separate problem / the question if you want to provide a backport for stable is a different question IMO. > Thanks a lot, > Alex Thanks to you for your work! Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - https://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Kurt Ostbahn & Die Kombo: (No a) Defekt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature