Bug#877195: the patches
[apparently this ended up sat in my drafts for a while]
On Sun, 2017-10-01 at 23:49 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Friday, 29 September 2017 4:39:15 PM AEDT Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-09-30 at 01:08 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > I've attached the patches. These all come from the package
> > > currently
> > > in
> > > Testing.
> >
> > Thanks, but we don't review individual patches (at least, we don't
> > ack/nack uploads based on looking at individual patches).
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html
>
> Section 5.5.1 of the above seemed to indicate that I should do it
> that way.
> Did I misunderstand it or does the documentation need improving?
Some combination. :-)
You used reportbug to file the report - did it not ask for a debdiff?
> > If you'd like an ack for an upload to stable, we'd need to see a
> > full
> > source debdiff for a package that's been built and tested on
> > stable.
>
> I've attached such a debdiff. NB It has one thing that is not
> required (but
> is still handy) that is a build-conflicts against too-new versions of
> the SE
> Linux tools. This prevents anyone from accidentally building it on
> Testing or
> Unstable (which will be unusable). Obviously the package will work
> OK without
> such a build-conflict, unless you build it with the wrong packages
> installed.
Technically, it's version-constrained build-dependencies, rather than a
build-conflict.
In any case, the diff you supplied has:
+refpolicy (2:2.20161023.1-10) unstable; urgency=medium
which obviously isn't what you're proposing using for an upload to
stable. I realise I said "a package", but the implication was that it
be a package that you could simply upload "as-is" if the diff was OKed.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: