Bug#877195: the patches
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 9:41:58 PM AEDT Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > 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?
I can't remember.
> > 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.
Is that ok?
> 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.
So if I upload the same diff with a better version number it will be OK?
Reply to: