Hi Andrew, 2016-09-14 9:15 GMT-03:00 Andrew Worsley <amwors...@gmail.com>: > Good points - I guess it is not worth making a new package to fix > these items you mention - but the next one I should consider them. See > below for more details
However, I can't upload the package without "QA upload" text and changes about the patch pointed in d/cahngelog. > On 11 September 2016 at 23:18, Eriberto Mota <eribe...@debian.org> wrote: >> Contol: tag 837408 moreinfo >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I have some considerations: >> >> 1. d/changelog: >> >> - You are doing a QA upload. So, it must be in changelog. >> >> - You renamed the patch 03-ftbfs-zlib.patch to 01-ftbfs-zlib. Please, >> point it in changelog. >> >> 2. d/control: >> >> - Please, bump Standards-Version to 3.9.8. >> >> Thanks for your work. >> >> Regards, >> >> Eriberto >> > > Thanks for your e-mail I will note the points about the changelog for > next time (as policy says best to fix changelog via an additional > entry). > > I didn't check the changes to the Standards-Version field as I didn't > feel expert to look at that so I didn't attempt to update that. > > So I have started to trawl through the changes via > > /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.txt.gz > (from stretch which is upto 3.9.8.0) > > since partimage-0.6.8 is currently as per Standards-Version 3.9.1. > I found some things: > > 3.9.3: > 9.1.1 > `/run' is allowed as an exception to the FHS and replaces > `/var/run'. `/run/lock' replaces `/var/lock'. The FHS > requirements for the older directories apply to these directories > as well. Backward compatibility links will be maintained and > packages need not switch to referencing `/run' directly yet. > Files in `/run' should be stored in a temporary file system. > ... > > 9.1.4 > New section spelling out the requirements for packages that use > files in `/run', `/var/run', or `/var/lock'. This generalizes > information previously only in 9.3.2. > > partimage-0.6.9/debian/partimage-server.partimaged.init > > has PIDFILE=/var/run/partimaged.pid > > The above is ok I guess and otherwise I think the policy is good - so > next build I will bump up the Standards-version level as well. You are right but lintian checks if your package is compliant with Debian Policy (ok, it does not check 100% because it hasn't AI, but is a parameter used for this in Debian). Regards, Eriberto
