[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: kde-gtk-config_5.13.5-1_source.changes ACCEPTED into unstable



Hi,

> First of all, thanks for working in improving kde-gtk-config.
>
>>    * New upstream release.
>
> As mentioned in a private mail, I try to avoid versions were the only change
> is the version bump.

Yep, I remember. But there were no reason to not update this version together
with package update. Also debdiff says that two lines were changed in file
"po/zh_CN/kde-gtk-config.po". ;-)

>>    * Bump Standards-Version to 4.2.1 (was 4.1.4): no changes required.
>
> Right, I haven't bumped any Standards-Version beyond 4.1.4, that's, a personal
> decision based on a change introduced in 4.1.5. I'm not expecting anyone else
> to follow suite.
>
> The Standards-Version 4.1.5 includes a change that I consider counter
> productive, that is:
> ...

Ok, I see your point of view. Happily, this rule should not affect
kde-gtk-config package because it is now among basic KDE applications.

>>    * Simplify debian/control: drop requirement of specific version of cmake
>>      (was >= 2.8.12), because even Debian Jessie has cmake version 3.0.2.
>
> The CMakeLists.txt states that it requires the version, why would the
> debian/control show this requirement?
>
> I don't see a simplification here, also the version build dependency is added
> by a script that parses the CMakeLists.txt shipped in the package in particular:
>  cmake_minimum_required(VERSION 2.8.12)

Obviously we use different tools and rules during maintaining of packages.
And I just was not aware of your script.

> So, the version dependency would be added in the next run of the script.

I do not see a problem here. If you will add versioned dependency in a next
upload, than let it be. Or you may manually edit file after automatic changes
done by script. Or we may improve that magical script...

This is co-maintained package. We just have to come to common decision and I
will add a point in my notes for this package.

> Are you really that much against adding a version dependency is no longer in
> the archive?

This is not strictly a matter of principle, but just a question of common sense.

Best regards,
Boris


Reply to: