Hi Daichi, Sorry for taking so long to respond. I got sidetracked doing research on a git packaging approach that works better for sponsorship.
On Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 11:30:32AM +0900, Daichi Fukui wrote:
> >Have we decided how this package will be moving forward?
> Partly yes.
> I'm going to take the following approach out of the three approaches
> Daniel introduced in the previous email.
> 2) Have a select set of people (maint+uploaders) be collectively
> responsible or
> Since Dmitry has already been an uploader, I'll follow this tradition
> so that Bas will be another uploader for this package.
Just keep in mind that people in uploaders should actually be invested in
taking care of the package, but I'll leave that to your judgment.
> That said, I'm holding off on uploading a new package with the
> metadata changes because I'm waiting for Daniel (and other DDs) to
> have some time for reviewing this package and sharing feedback with
> us.
Your package looks really good. I appreciate that you took the time to
forward 0007-Fix-groff-warning.patch upstream and to give d/copyright a
once-over despite this not being a NEW upload.
In the context of an NMU I may have elided the volumptous d/copyright
changes to not step on the maintainer's toes too much. Those could have
been delivered as a seperate patch instead. However, since we're not
looking at this as an NMU anymore it is actually a positive change :)
In d/copyright you split the doc/* block into multiple and retain the
previously existing
Comment:
Man pages were created from the upstream documentation for use with the
Debian operating system.
I think this Comment is clutter and doesn't really add anything of
relevance to d/copyright. It seems to me the manpages come from upstream so
I don't really see what this is trying to tell us. I'd remove it from the
new blocks or even remove it entirely if you agree.
Nit: The GPL-2 block says "v2 as published ...", but that only really
appears in iowatcher/ the rest of the code has the "version 2."
text.
License: GPL-2
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 as published
Probably not worth fussing over.
Lintian finds one complaint:
W: blktrace source: timewarp-standards-version (2023-09-16 < 2024-04-07)
You should bump the timestamp in d/changelog for your next upload not sure
how you managed to trigger that :)
I think we're ready for uploading. Remember to update the d/changelog
version to -1.
What remains to discuss is how you want to handle the git repo. Personally
I still haven't found a git packaging workflow I'm really happy with so I
have a hard time recommending something. gbp is the most popular but I find
it lacking in a number of technical aspects. dgit is nice but complex,
still a bit niche and also not technically perfect in my eyes.
Perhaps it would be best to just stick with the current debian/-only repo
layout since blktrace doesn't seem to get many releases anyway? If we
document the magic incantation to unpack a new upstream release in
d/README.source it's not so bad really.
Thoughts?
--Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
