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

Re: Bug#608413: Possible patch for libio-socket-inet6-perl?



Hi Julien

I'm adding the Release-Team and in particular Masahito Omote to the
loop, as Masahito is the Maintainer.

On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 12:42:37PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> wrote:
> > First of all I'm not the maintainer and I'm not having that good IPv6
> > knowledge. Could you try if the patch inbetween the upstreams versions
> > 2.55 and 2.56 solves the problem? The debdiff for a proposed NMU is
> > attached.
> 
> I'll give it a go; have you looked into 2.62 also?

No, not in detail as I saw Steffen Ullrich mentioned it was due to a
previous fix in the previous uploaded version.

> All in all, 2.65 has been in unstable for over 110 days now and I've
> been told the release team is OK with 2.65 but not with the packaging
> changes and would accept 2.65 with the old packaging.

Oh, great. Didn't saw such conversation with RT!

> This would be way better given there were only v6 fixes and testsuite
> improvements/fixes between 2.54 and 2.65.

If this would be accepted by the release-Team this would be way better
yes! The changes between 2.54-1.1 and 2.65-1 related to the packaging
itself are only:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff -Nru libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.54/debian/changelog libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.65/debian/changelog
--- libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.54/debian/changelog       2011-01-05 13:00:17.000000000 +0100
+++ libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.65/debian/changelog       2011-01-05 13:00:17.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+libio-socket-inet6-perl (2.65-1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+  * New upstream release (closes: Bug#575531)
+  * Close #480500 that was already fixed in 2.54. (closes: Bug#480500)
+  * Standards-Version: 3.9.1
+
+ -- Masahito Omote <omote@debian.org>  Sun, 12 Sep 2010 02:59:48 +0900
+
 libio-socket-inet6-perl (2.54-1.1) unstable; urgency=low

   * Non-maintainer upload.
diff -Nru libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.54/debian/control libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.65/debian/control
--- libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.54/debian/control 2011-01-05 13:00:17.000000000 +0100
+++ libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.65/debian/control 2011-01-05 13:00:17.000000000 +0100
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7)
 Build-Depends-Indep: perl (>= 5.8.0-7)
 Maintainer: Masahito Omote <omote@debian.org>
-Standards-Version: 3.7.3.0
+Standards-Version: 3.9.1

 Package: libio-socket-inet6-perl
 Architecture: all
diff -Nru libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.54/debian/copyright libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.65/debian/copyright
--- libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.54/debian/copyright       2011-01-05 13:00:17.000000000 +0100
+++ libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.65/debian/copyright       2011-01-05 13:00:17.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,10 +1,6 @@
 This is the debian package for the IO::Socket::INET6 module.
 It was created by Masahito Omote <omote@debian.org> using dh-make-perl.

-This copyright info was automatically extracted from the perl module.
-It may not be accurate, so you better check the module sources
-if don't want to get into legal troubles.
-
 This program is based on IO::Socket::INET by Graham Barr
 <gbarr@pobox.com> and currently maintained by the Perl Porters.

diff -Nru libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.54/debian/rules libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.65/debian/rules
--- libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.54/debian/rules   2011-01-05 13:00:17.000000000 +0100
+++ libio-socket-inet6-perl-2.65/debian/rules   2011-01-05 13:00:17.000000000 +0100
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
 install:
        dh_testdir
        dh_testroot
-       dh_clean -k
+       dh_clean
        dh_installdirs

        $(MAKE) install PREFIX=$(TMP)/usr
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Release-Team, are you finde with uploading 2.65 to unstable again, but
reverting thus only the dh_clean call? Please let me know, I can
prepare an NMU in such case, if Masahito would not like to do it right
himself?

Bests
Salvatore

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: