gregor herrmann <gre...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:05:50 +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > >> >> The patch also includes fixes for packaging issues. >> > This is not a good idea for an NMU for an RC bug during the freeze >> The package is currently not cleaning properly (violation of policy >> §4.1) and not building twice in a row. While the former is clearly an RC >> issue, it looks like the latter is indeed not considered as such. >> Anyways I don't mind if these changes are not incorporated. > > I see your point, and I appreciate the fixes in general, but I guess > the release team would be a bit overwhelmed if we included fixes for > all not-yet-reported policy violations :) > > BTW: When I try to build twice I get (after having added > o2monitor/o2hbmonitor to debian/clean already): > > dpkg-source -b ocfs2-tools-1.6.4 > dpkg-source: info: using source format `3.0 (quilt)' > dpkg-source: info: building ocfs2-tools using existing > ./ocfs2-tools_1.6.4.orig.tar.gz > dpkg-source: warning: ignoring deletion of file o2monitor/o2hbmonitor > dpkg-source: warning: executable mode 0755 of 'vendor/common/o2cb.init' will > not be represented in diff > dpkg-source: info: local changes detected, the modified files are: > ocfs2-tools-1.6.4/mkfs.ocfs2/mkfs.ocfs2.8 > ocfs2-tools-1.6.4/o2image/o2image.8 > ocfs2-tools-1.6.4/vendor/common/o2cb.init > > which doesn't exactly match the list of files you added to d/clean :)
The *.8 manpages are present in the original tarball, but just modified by the build, so I put them in ignore in d/source/options rather than d/clean. But they could indeed rather have been put in d/clean. Anyways, let's just forget about that packaging part, I don't want to argue. >> >> + * Remove popen2-ignore-depreciation-warn.patch: DeprecationWarnings >> >> are now >> >> + ignored by default in Python 2.7, and this patch messes things up >> >> + (Closes: #682517, LP: #923754) >> > Hm, and what happens if ocfs2console is run with python2.6? >> I did not consider that possibility, given that the app is run with a >> #!/usr/bin/python shebang, and that the /usr/bin/python symlink is not >> managed by an alternative. Am I missing something? > > No, it was me who was missing something (python details still confuse > me), thanks for the enlightenment! > > And since the package has Depends: ..., python (<< 2.8), python (>= 2.7), ... > we also have a safety net here. Then if you are convinced that this is the right fix don't hesitate to go with your own NMU, I cannot upload mine anyways since I'm a DM. Otherwise if it saves you from some work I am also willing to regenerate my nmudiff. Thanks, -- .''`. Sébastien Villemot : :' : Debian Maintainer `. `' http://www.dynare.org/sebastien `- GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594
pgppwUHl2Z4eg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
