Hi there,
Le samedi, 13 août 2016, 14.48:17 h CEST Till Kamppeter a écrit :
> On Aug 9 I have synced CUPS with Debian as 2.2c1-1 was released. I did
> not get any buid failure messages after the sync and so all looked OK
> for me.
>
> The first one (2.2~rc1-2ubuntu1) seems to be backported from 2.2~rc1-3
> and would have arrived in Ubuntu by itself via auto-sync:
Actually, it was independently done as Ubuntu patch before I had a change to
upload a fix (which was done in less than 48 hours, see https://
bugs.debian.org/833889)
> Didier, why did you remove the Ubuntu-specific patches?
This was an unintentional side-effect of the conversion to git-dpm (38b2a72),
sorry for that.
Please note though that this change was only committed to the "debian/
experimental" branch, and only uploaded to the experimental Debian suite. That
branch and that suite are not intended for wider consumption. If you sync from
this suite into your derivative, then it's up to you to keep the pieces
together, really.
Keeping the Ubuntu-specific patches and the patching mechanism in the Debian
packaging is a favour, but should not be taken for granted. It's of course in
all of us' interest to have a common packaging, and in that spirit, I have
spent quite a lot of time integrating and cleaning up some of these (look at
the work to integrate and document the ErrorPolicy default change, uploaded as
2.1.4-3). In that context, such mails, with such an accusatory tone aren't
really motivating, I must say.
By the way, I'm happy to give commit access to the repository if Ubuntu (or
any other derivative) wants to do packaging work directly in $derivate/$suite
branches. A look in the git history would have helped assuming good faith, and
finding the source of the problem.
--
Cheers,
OdyXAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.