Hi Nicholas, I have spent some time going through the commit messages. There has been a lot of work done! On 29/12/2020 17:29, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi Ross! > > Ross Gammon <rossgammon@debian.org> writes: > >> owner 954823 rossgammon@debian.org >> thanks >> >> Hi Nicholas, >> >> I am happy to take a look at hydrogen, and sponsor it. I have some spare >> time over the next few days. >> > Thank you, I really appreciate this! :-D Here are some notes and > questions: > > Will you be sponsoring from git or mentors? How would you like me to > work during the WIP cycles of the review? The git history will look a > bit silly and confusing with too many "refinalise for release to > unstable" commits ;-) I can do either. But I think in this case, I would prefer to work from mentors (mainly because I have problems with my gbp setup on this computer). But please also keep the git repository in sync (even if it is on a different branch that we can merge later). Actually, I would like to compliment you on your commit messages. It was pleasing to see a verbose reason for the change, instead of some short cryptic message that just generates more questions. I think it is best to keep a record of the review in the RFS bug. So I have cc'd the RFS bug (sorry - I did not spot it when I started), and we can continue the discussion there. > > On #debian-multimedia, Sebastinas did a preliminary review, and two big > issues were: > > 1. override_dh_auto_build had a typo! "override_override_dh_auto_build" > * <facepalm> I've fixed this locally > 2. I was missing an override_dh_auto_configure to make use of > $DEB_CMAKE_EXTRA_FLAGS > * I believe that is why the extra lib and dev packages became > necessary. Now that I know what was causing the problem I can > restore something closer to the old packaging. > * Changing this in the future will require another trip through NEW, > so what do you think the correct split of the package is? I was wondering why the library packages suddenly appeared. I think if it is possible, it is best to stick to the old packages. What applications would want to use hydrogen as a library? > 3. override_dh_auto_clean failed to run "dh_auto_clean". Oops :-/ This might explain why I found that the package failed to build twice in a row for me. > I've already make local fixes for these and other issues, but will delay > pushing until I receive your preference regarding the shared lib and dev > packages. I'm of course open to fixing other issues and removing > anything you consider vestigial to the old cdbs packaging (I chose the > more labour-intensive approach rather than clean packaging)! > >> Have you reopened any bugs that were closed when the package was removed? >> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#reintroducing-packages >> > I have not yet reopened any bugs. The list of -rm bugs is: > 945042 642014 629105 870395 794042 586087 874907 347279 945042 > > There seem to be differences in perspective about when/if these bugs > should be reopened. My preference is to maintain a strong link between > the changelog and BTS, for future reference, and for future > maintainers. Given "changelog closes bugs in wrong way", I feel like > reopening the bugs that will be closed by the yet-to-be-uploaded > changelog entry is the correct approach, because it creates a strong > link between the changelog and BTS. I think the best thing is to reopen the bug and then close them in the changelog once it is confirmed that they are closed. That way they are closed with the right version information. The most important thing is to ensure that bugs that are not fixed in the new version remain open. Let me know when the new version is available on mentors. Ross
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature