Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 10:15 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2015 4:57 AM, "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
> >
> > On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:17 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> > > In April of 2013 (version 4.7j-7), I converted cproto to debhelper
> 7.
> > > In the process, I accidentally lost the only option I was passing
> to
> > > configure (--enable-llib). As a result, I disabled the -X
> command-line
> > > option. This means there is a functional regression between
> wheezy
> > > (version 4.7j-5) and jessie (version 4.7l-3). The manpage is also
> > > wrong. See bug #784719.
> > >
> > > A few minutes ago, I uploaded version 4.7l-4 to unstable. The
> diff vs.
> > > 4.7l-3 (in jessie) is attached as debian.diff. The only change is
> to
> > > pass the missing --enable-llib configure option.
> >
> > Thanks for that.
> >
> > The patch looks okay in isolation, but the more interesting and
> useful
> > diff is between the package in jessie and the one that you're
> proposing
> > to upload to p-u. That should be versioned as either 4.7l-3+deb8u1
> or
> > -4~deb8u1 depending on whether you add the patch to the jessie
> package
> > or rebuild (and test) the unstable package in a jessie environment.
>
> Well, the package in jessie is identical to the package in unstable
> prior to yesterday's upload, so the diff for 4.7l-3+deb8u1 or
> -4~deb8u1 would be the same as in debian.diff except for the version
> number itself. Does that answer your question?
The diff for -3+deb8u1 would be; -4~deb8u1 would include an extra
changelog stanza (as it would have -4's and then -4~deb8u1's).
> I haven't prepared the jessie-specific package yet, because I wasn't
> sure it was worthwhile... I can rebuild against jessie or unstable,
> whichever you prefer.
The rebuild needs to be against jessie; that's a fairly fundamental
given for updating the package in stable.
If you were referring to whether to take the backport route or adding
the patch, then either is fine as long as the version number makes sense
for the approach taken.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: