Bug#877610: RFS: libexif/0.6.21-2.1 [NMU]
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 07:45:25AM +0000, Hugh McMaster wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 October 2017 11:03 AM +1100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > This drastically exceeds what is appropriate for a NMU without the
> > maintainer's consent. Sure, the package looks neglected, but if you're
> > taking steps to salvage it, it wouldn't be a NMU (at least without an
> > explanation). And a NMU requires following the procedure.
> This puts me in a catch-22 situation, doesn't it? While I agree that there are
> a large number of changes, if I don't update the package standards or fix
> lintian issues, someone on Debian Mentors will (most likely) reject the
> package until the work is done.
Obviously you're not expected to make changes in situations where only
targetted changes are allowed.
> Also, I have read through section 5.11 of the Developer's Reference [1] several
> times, but I cannot see which part of the NMU procedure I have missed.
5.11.1, second bullet point:
# Does your NMU really fix bugs? ("Bugs" means any kind of bugs, e.g.
# wishlist bugs for packaging a new upstream version, but care should be
# taken to minimize the impact to the maintainer.) Fixing cosmetic issues or
# changing the packaging style (e.g. switching from cdbs to dh) in NMUs is
# discouraged.
These rules are less strict than, for example, a stable upload, but there's
still a good reason to minimize changes not coordinated with the maintainer.
> > The package is marked as team maintained, but neither do I see you among
> > the PhotoTools team, nor did you claim a team upload.
> That's correct. I'm not part of the PhotoTools team.
>
> > Thus, while your changes are welcome, I see confusion wrt what you're
> > trying to do here. Options include:
> > * a traditional "hostile" NMU: targetted fixes only, posting a NMU diff is
> > required prior to upload
> I sent the diff and intent to NMU to #786562 a few days ago [2]. That mail
> was automatically sent to the PhotoTools mailing list. I'm not sure what you
> mean by "hostile".
Sorry for not being clear: I've put "hostile" into quotation marks, as it's
irrational to be angry for someone else making fixes in your packages -- at
least if the fixes are important enough, and the maintainer didn't do so in
a timely matter. But it happens that certain maintainers consider their
packages a fiefdom and treat everyone as intruders even if they don't do
their job properly.
> > * an authorized (ie, with maintainer's consent) NMU: everything goes
> I sent an email to Emmanuel Bouthenot a week ago asking whether he or
> Frederic Peters were able to update the package with the upstream
> CVE patches and Multi-Arch: same field. I also flagged my intent to NMU
> if they could not update the package. He did not respond.
>
> I also tried contacting him via PM on OFTC -- again, no response.
In #786562:
} I am no longer active in libexif maintenance but I had a look at the
} NMU diff and it looks fine to me; I'd suggest you to go ahead and
} upload that.
Ie, we're here. As the changes were okay'ed, we can proceed with cosmetic
changes.
> > That lintian override is wrong, only one paragraph can apply to a file.
> > I haven't done any real review other than a quick glance, thus there might
> > be more issues.
> The debian/copyright file follows the usual structure, with the exception of
> a few paragraphs, which refer to the same file. For example:
>
> Files: po/en_GB.po
> Copyright: 2009, Bruce Cowan
> License: LGPL-2.1+
> [...]
> Files: po/en_GB.po
> Copyright: 2010, Robert Readman
> License: LGPL-2.1+
>
> This causes lintian to complain that the first occurrence is not used.
> I'm not sure how to fix this, as in one case, the licence is different.
That's because the first occurrence indeed is not used. The second one
overrides it. You instead need to write:
Files: po/en_GB.po
Copyright: 2009, Bruce Cowan
2010, Robert Readman
License: LGPL-2.1+
(Any line starting with whitespace is a continuation.)
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ We domesticated dogs 36000 years ago; together we chased
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ animals, hung out and licked or scratched our private parts.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ Cats domesticated us 9500 years ago, and immediately we got
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ agriculture, towns then cities. -- whitroth on /.
Reply to: