On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 at 21:53:30 +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 02:51:41AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > > I've prepared a slightly more complete patch, fixing some other issues > > including a lintian error. > > Thanks for the patch! It looks fine to me (even though, I'd have used > dpatch or quilt to manage the patches against the upstream sources).
I considered this to be a "NMU waiting for happen", and I don't think it's
appropriate to change the patch system (away from "none", in this case) in an
NMU. Opinions may vary, obviously.
I've started to provide a git repository on git.debian.org for all my NMUs,
which I think is an even better way to get nicely-separated patches to the
maintainer.
> > I don't plan to NMU this since I can't meaningfully test it (I don't
> > have the relevant hardware!)
>
> … however, the same applies to me. I do not use any IPMI stuff myself
> but use libopenipmi as a build-dependency only.
>
> Since the Debian maintainer did not react at all within more than 1.5
> years, an NMU would be very appreciated. If you're using IPMI and are
> able to test and upload the package, please go ahead.
Since the changes we made are build-system-only, and I verified that they let
collectd compile against openipmi even after collectd's workaround has been
removed, I'm getting quite tempted to just upload it anyway...
S
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
