Re: hwtools should include MemMMXtest
On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 09:45:11PM +0200, Eric Delaunay wrote:
> > I'm running mostly up-to-date potato. If you could send me your patches so
> > far, I could split it. If not that, then just tell me what needs to be done
> > (which utilities to move to another package) and I'll try to do it.
>
> I've wrote preliminary support for scsidev at boot time but 1/ it needs
> more test and 2/ it requires freeramdisk to be available in /bin or /sbin
> (I filed a bug against util-linux to request for its inclusion).
> Therefore the scripts are not yet ready for distribution.
>
> I also built a 0.6-1 release of hwtools without scsi support but I can
> just upload full sources because it only builds on i386 and I cannot
> compile it atm because my PC is still running slink. Perhaps I can better
> send you the package and let you compile and upload it?
Feel free.
> Anyway I guess I can upload my first release of scsitools package without
> boot time support for scsidev. It works at least on my sparc. It will
> conflict with hwtools << 0.6 but I don't know whether it should also
> replaces hwtools?
"Conflicts: hwtools (<< 0.6)" is all it takes, no Replaces.
Note that the new hwtools should have a Recommends: on scsitools because
existing users of scsi* stuff will lack the functionality... a debconf
note should be added, too.
> Another point is: what to do with closing bugs? I upgraded scsidev to
> 2.10 in scsitools so it should fix 4 bug reports (#46622, #47340, #48306,
> #30554). However is it right to include a Closes: line in the changelog of
> scsitools? They're closing bugs of another package! Or should I reassign
> the bugs to scsitools (hmm, not yet registered in Debian) or even close
> them by hand?
Just include the closes: line in the changelog, that's acceptable. dinstall
won't recognize you as the maintainer (that's correct, actually), and will
just mark the bugs as `fixed'. Then you should close the manually.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: