Re: Please allow biofox 1.1.5-1 in Lenny.
Le Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:42:08AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit :
>
> I'm sorry, I still don't understand it. It has no user-visible effects.
> According to you it changes nothing to the binary packages. The best case is
> that everything remains the same. I'm puzzled then why you decided to make
> this change. I just can't find any advantage of it.
The advantage is normalisation. I prefer to use the latest Debhelper version if
possible. We have more than 100 packages in our repository, and if some carry
on some legacy versions from upgrade to upgrade, each time one will work on the
packate, he will have to figure out why the latest is not used. With the latest
upload of BioFOX, I took the opportunity to verify that it was compatible with
Debhelper 7. I prefer not to wait that level 5 is deprecated to do this, and
given the slow turnover of packages like biofox, each upload is an opportunity.
And since it does not change the binary package, I thought that it would not be
a problem. Here is the diff between the Lenny update and the package in Sid.
Only version number and changelog differs.
anx159《tmp》$ diff -ruN mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1~lenny mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1
diff -ruN mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1~lenny/control mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1/control
--- mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1~lenny/control 2009-01-28 03:17:22.000000000 +0900
+++ mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1/control 2009-01-24 17:03:01.000000000 +0900
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Package: mozilla-biofox
Source: biofox
-Version: 1.1.5-1~lenny
+Version: 1.1.5-1
Architecture: all
Maintainer: Debian-Med Packaging Team <debian-med-packaging@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Installed-Size: 216
Binary files mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1~lenny/control.tar.gz and mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1/control.tar.gz differ
Binary files mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1~lenny/data.tar.gz and mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1/data.tar.gz differ
diff -ruN mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1~lenny/md5sums mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1/md5sums
--- mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1~lenny/md5sums 2009-01-28 03:17:23.000000000 +0900
+++ mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1/md5sums 2009-01-24 17:03:01.000000000 +0900
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
-c89dec7c543cfcd2995969732de63f90 usr/share/doc/mozilla-biofox/README.Debian
-997ce2681bd789c2d853d4f0ba05c9ee usr/share/doc/mozilla-biofox/copyright
-3c7d0cd3383d3f89115a1cd21824e4ab usr/share/doc/mozilla-biofox/changelog.Debian.gz
-a140bf031ab6ac790a866c1a523b3481 usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/uninstall/Uninstall
578dd5e0853ba9674020eb913cd47c5f usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/chrome/biofox.jar
-bc1f25b1b5ffef2b326b4e9b4b8eb779 usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/chrome.d
-3f1b6b3bf5937979db8c9a8d8e6f5554 usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/chrome.manifest
f3802cab7afb09496f3f3cb1abfc50b0 usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/install.rdf
765f38f1773ef7e7863b94a71c9ed1f7 usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/extensions.d
+bc1f25b1b5ffef2b326b4e9b4b8eb779 usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/chrome.d
+a140bf031ab6ac790a866c1a523b3481 usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/uninstall/Uninstall
+3f1b6b3bf5937979db8c9a8d8e6f5554 usr/lib/iceweasel/extensions/{fbfbf0bf-032e-427e-932d-0b000a34f168}/chrome.manifest
+c89dec7c543cfcd2995969732de63f90 usr/share/doc/mozilla-biofox/README.Debian
+997ce2681bd789c2d853d4f0ba05c9ee usr/share/doc/mozilla-biofox/copyright
+bb88626fbf92f85fa2bae13a5aa1bfde usr/share/doc/mozilla-biofox/changelog.Debian.gz
Binary files mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1~lenny/usr/share/doc/mozilla-biofox/changelog.Debian.gz and mozilla-biofox_1.1.5-1/usr/share/doc/mozilla-biofox/changelog.Debian.gz differ
I hope next time we trust each other and we are not asked to upload identical
packages with cosmetical changes. Anyway, as we say in France, "sans rancune"
(no offense).
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: