control: tag -1 +confirmed control: noowner -1 Hello Félix,
I'm tagging this as confirmed (commit
184eb7ba0dfb453cd5aa759a1a88fdbee6ed5367) because you've addressed
everything I brought up, but I've also written some comments below in
response to your most recent message.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 05:33:16PM +0100, Félix Sipma wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:34:11PM +0200, Félix Sipma wrote:
> >> On 2016-10-23 11:51-0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> >>> You should use "Forwarded: not-needed" (see DEP-3).
> >>
> >> This does not seem to work with gbp-pq (see #785274), I propose to add
> >> this as
> >> soon as gbp-pq supports DEP-3.
> >
> > Indeed. Dmitry Bogatov pointed out to me that you can put the
> > Forwarded: header at the end of the patch description (just before the
> > ---) and then gbp won't remove it.
>
> It seems like gbp _does_ remove the Forwarded: header put just before the
> ---...
Not on my machine -- weird.
iris ~/rfs/patat % gbp pq import
gbp:info: Trying to apply patches at
'184eb7ba0dfb453cd5aa759a1a88fdbee6ed5367'
gbp:info: 1 patches listed in 'debian/patches/series' imported on
'patch-queue/master'
iris ~/rfs/patat % gbp pq export
gbp:info: On 'patch-queue/master', switching to 'master'
gbp:info: Generating patches from git (master..patch-queue/master)
On branch master
Your branch is up-to-date with 'origin/master'.
nothing to commit, working tree clean
gbp:info: Dropped branch 'patch-queue/master'.
iris ~/rfs/patat % git diff
[no output, and indeed your Forwarded: header is present]
> > I wanted to confirm that you'd forwarded your --version patch, but I
> > couldn't without this header :)
>
> This particular patch is not needed anymore (fixed upstream). I pushed a new
> version to my repo, and will put this new version on mentors as soon as pandoc
> gets installable again.
Looks good.
> >>>>> I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat Nam Name
> >>>>> I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat isn't isn't
> >>>>> I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat forward forward
> >>>>> I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat upto up to
> >>>>> I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat discontigous
> >>>>> discontiguous
> >>>>> I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat uncomplete incomplete
> >>>>> I: patat: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/patat The The
>
> [...]
>
> I guess it is better to not override this warning, so that we don't forget
> that
> the dependencies needs to be fixed.
Fair enough. My reasoning was that you can't fix it within this
package, so the warning shouldn't be emitted here.
> > 2. Did you generate it with help2man, in the end? If so, there should
> > be a rule in d/rules to allow someone to regenerate the manpage for a
> > new upstream version (see the ocrmypdf package's rules file). If
> > upstream introduces a new upstream version it should be easy to update
> > the manpage.
>
> No. I did it by hand, help2man generated something ugly :-).
Cool!
> > 3. It might be nice to add a reference to the file in
> > /usr/share/doc/patat/examples to the manpage. If I wanted to learn
> > how to use patat, the manpage alone wouldn't be much use.
>
> Upstream is working on a manpage (see
> https://github.com/jaspervdj/patat/issues/19 ). I'll add this manpage later,
> for now I would like to have patat in debian. This manpage stuff is not
> essential (and it takes time to work on it, that's why I didn't want to work
> on
> this), so I'd like to keep it like this, and update it as soon as upstream
> release a manpage.
I understand why you wouldn't want to work on a manpage in parallel with
upstream's work, as you'll have to just throw yours away once they
release theirs. It's good to hear that they've decided to work on
that -- thanks for prompting them.
General remarks in response to what you wrote:
Debian has a lot of unmaintained and low-quality packages because people
wanted to "have it in Debian", but weren't willing to put time into
making the package high-quality. That's why, in the RFS review process,
we try to give new contributors opportunities to demonstrate that they
want to make their package high-quality. DDs are generally reluctant to
sponsor packages where it is not clear that the packager is planning to
continue to put time into the package after it has been uploaded.
In this case you've amply demonstrated that you're willing to maintain
the package, but I just wanted to explain to you why I've been insisting
on these things that, as you say, aren't essential.
> patat is buildable again on sid.
I just built and installed the package and everything seems to work.
You could look into adding the hardening flags, now that the Haskell
transition is almost completely finished.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
