On Sun, 2025-03-09 at 16:39 -0700, Michel Lind wrote: > Hi Breno, > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2025, at 12:29 PM, Breno Leitao wrote: > > Hello Michel, > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:37:06PM -0600, Michel Lind wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 04:26:12PM -0600, Michel Lind wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 03:21:04PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > > > > Michel, > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2025 2:36:26 PM MST Michel Lind > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Ah, OK, so these uploads all require FTP master review > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > - soname bump to 0.5.5 in experimental > > > > > > - initial upload of the new pykdumpfile in experimental > > > > > > - dropping python bindings in experimental > > > > > > - 0.5.5 without python in unstable (or can I as a DM do > > > > > > this myself?) > > > > > > - pykdumpfile in unstable > > > > > > > > > > > > If a package that's been cleared for experimental can be > > > > > > uploaded to > > > > > > unstable without FTP master review, even if it has binary > > > > > > subpackage > > > > > > name changes, that would simplify this quite a bit (but if > > > > > > it requires > > > > > > re-review, that's fine too, I just have to know how much to > > > > > > coordinate > > > > > > with the DD sponsoring the upload) > > > > > > > > > > FTP master review is only required when the name of a binary > > > > > package changes. Any > > > > > other change inside the binary package does not require their > > > > > review. > > > > > > > > > > Because FTP master review can take an unpredictable amount of > > > > > time, usually the best > > > > > course of action in this case would be to make all such > > > > > changes in experimental (because > > > > > it is OK for packages in experimental to not be coinstallable > > > > > or otherwise introduce > > > > > breakage with other packages). Once everything is settled, > > > > > you can upload a version of > > > > > these experimental packages that only changes the target to > > > > > unstable and they will all > > > > > drop in immediately. > > > > > > > > > Ah, great, thank you! > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone's feedbacks. I have uploaded this to > > > mentors.debian.net > > > > > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/libkdumpfile/ > > > > I had a look at the package above, but I got the following message > > when > > build. After the test passes, it shows: > > > > dh_missing: error: missing files, aborting > > > > Have you seen anything similar? > > > > Here is the rest of the log, afte the tests passed. > > > > > > Looks like you ran the build on a system with Python headers > installed so it built the Python bindings, then it failed because > there are unpackaged files > > It should not fail in sbuilder or pbuilder, but just in case I can > explicitly disable Python bindings from being built so it’s easier to > do a test build > Hi Breno,
The hypothesis is correct; by explicitly passing `--with-python=no` my test build succeeded even when I added python3-dev and python3- setuptools in debian/control Uploaded to mentors as #2 https://mentors.debian.net/package/libkdumpfile/#upload-2 The Salsa CI passed (the previous one has some non-critical failures but I suspect it's due to testing being in flux anyway) https://salsa.debian.org/michel/libkdumpfile/-/pipelines/832412 This is the commit corresponding to the upload https://salsa.debian.org/michel/libkdumpfile/-/commit/2ae62580da65df96c6d5bfe1aeb092cdd57b8acd and this is the added commit disabling Python for inspection https://salsa.debian.org/michel/libkdumpfile/-/commit/9d08aada535d863990a5c293f6e649f61042b6b2 Best regards, -- _o) Michel Lind _( ) identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2 README: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Salimma#README
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
