On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 05:44:51PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote: > Tobias, et. al: > > On 7/13/19 2:17 PM, Thomas Ward wrote: > > > After my message was sent, I was informed by Salsa afterwards at 4:18PM > my time (Eastern US, currently UTC-4) that the repository was made in > Debian's namespace for Debian/xca, and my access was provided to the > repository as Maintainer. Thank you to the Debian teams in question for > this, as well as for providing me that access. It definitely will > assist in moving this forward, as well as making Vcs-Git maintenance of > this much easier.
You're welcome ;-) > Using the provided gbp command from Tobias in the prior emails (thanks > for the command, I"m still getting the full hang of gbp, so every bit of > helpful information you can provide is appreciated), and that provided > access on Salsa, I have populated the repository with the data from the > dscs, which includes the pristine-tar and the upstream branches. This > data, based from what I can tell on 2.0.1 in Unstable, as well as all > the tags, has been uploaded to the repository to get us a 'baseline' > from what's in Debian. I have not made any efforts as of yet to apply > updated packaging changes, nor to address the bugs that I've identified > in Unstable need changes (including the version bumps). > > Note that these changes and this repository, as well as my use of the > gbp workflow thus far, I am going to be basing the remainder of my ITS > and the packaging I will be uploading to Mentors for sponsoring to > here. At that time, the ITS will be 'waiting' for further movement. > > Only two remaining questions for this before I move forward with > updating the Salsa repository with further changes (or the preferred way > I would be doing to get a second set of eyes on the changes, a pull > request from my own namespace in for all three branches). You can directly work on the debian repo, if you want. There is no need for an MR. (Even if the ITS fails, one can just delete the repo or push force or …) If you have questions it is probably the best to answer them via a mentors mailing list thread, as with that approach more people will be able to chime in and more important learn things. (Or, you can also use the RFS process for that, asking the questions in the RFS bug report) > As I am currently not the specified maintainer for this package, and > given > that I have filed this ITS: > > (1) should I write the changelog entries from the perspective of an NMU > or as if I am the maintainer/co-maintainer of the repository? > > (2) Should the Uploaders field be updated in the process as well to > include myself as well, or should I let that be handled at a later point > in time by the MIA team or by another DD? First be aware that your ITS is quite in an early stage [1] and it might be that the maintainer objects. An objection would mean that your work on the package might become fruitless, you could feel like that you've wasted your time on the package. (Of course, the patches you create are valuable and should then be attached to bug reports, so they are not completly lost). Beside that, there is not much difference between a NMU and a regular upload in terms of the debian/changelog, its mere one line more that states that it is an NMU (along with the NMU version of course). When doing the final stage of the ITS, it would be like adopting a package. So you will then add your name to the Maintainer field with the upload you have prepared to be reviewed ue. No other DD or MIA persons will be involved here (beside the one reviewing your package) [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#package-salvaging -- Cheers, tobi > > > Thomas >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
