Re: RFS: intel-gpu-tools/1.15-1~bpo8+1

[Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>]

Hi Vincent,

On 10 July 2016 at 23:27, Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi Nicholas,
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear X Strike Force,
>>
>> I am writing to you to request a sponsored upload for a backport of
>> intel-gpu-tools, before seeking a general sponsor.  I am working on
>> bpos of libva and i965-va-driver for hardware enablement, and a newer
>> intel-gpu-tools is a required build dependency.
>>
>
> Erhmm, I don't think this is what you really intend to upload? Your
> changelog entry above makes no sense for a diff that is 37k lines
> long, so there's something obviously wrong with your package...

I used git-buildpackage-0.6.22, and the full command used was:
git-buildpackage --git-pbuilder --git-debian-branch=jessie-backports
--git-dist=jessie-backports -v1.8-1

> $ debdiff stretch/intel-gpu-tools_1.15-1.dsc
> bpo/intel-gpu-tools_1.15-1~bpo8+1.dsc | wc -l
> 37220

Yes, now I see that too.  Could it be a bug in the version of gbp I'm
using, or did I make a mistake somewhere?  Gianfranco, what do you
think?  Did I stumble into a common pitfall?

> I've gone ahead and recreated your backported package as you probably
> intended it to be (i.e. with the above changelog entry and the patch
> you submitted in #829525; see attached 26-line debdiff), and uploaded
> it to backports-NEW. As per backports rules, please ensure that you're
> subscribed to the backports mailing list if you aren't already (for
> the purpose of receiving backports-related bug reports). I assume
> you've read all the other rules and are willing to maintain
> intel-gpu-tools for jessie's lifespan.

Thank you for the upload!  Yes I am subscribed to the list, have read
all the rules I've been able to find, and plan to maintain the
backport.

Cheers,
Nicholas