On 03/18/2014 03:21 AM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > #740311 is bug. I haven't looked at the patch (I am catching up on my > volunteer software work now while offline) but I assume if it is a > minimal change and it fixes an important issue with the package, go > ahead and prepare an NMU fixing it.
Best is simply to upgrade to the latest upstream release: it fixes it. > Of course, I'd like make sure that upstream has the patch but if it's > been forwarded on (or applied), I don't object to applying the patch > here at all. > > In terms of #738327, I'm not wild about gutting CDBS and essentially > redoing the package because you're not familiar with how to handle > Python3 support. I don't love the idea of NMUs that redo the entire > package because the person doing the NMU is not familiar with the > packaging software used. It seems like to a lot to change to a > relatively simple and stable package for something that is likely > unnecessary. Hi, Sure, I understand, and agree. I was merely proposing a way to do things. But also, please keep in mind that python-support is deprecated, and one way or another, you must change the package to get away from it. Switching to dh_python2 is what everyone recommends these days. Does CDBS support python3, and is there ways to do CDBS *without* using python-support? Cheers, Thomas Goirand -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
