❦ 11 septembre 2015 08:46 -0300, J.S.Júnior <j.s.jun...@live.com> :
>> Sorry for the bikeshed, > I don't understand this. (bikeshed) :) Maybe this is not the proper way to use it. It's like yak shaving. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding >> The description of fix-mini-httpd-vhost could be "Append port number to >> vhost". The name of the patch could be "append-portno-to-vhost.patch". A >> bug report number to know why this is done would be great to. > fix name. > Yes, look [1] You can include the bug number in the patch (with Bug:). I see that you already put it in the changelog but the entry doesn't help to know what the patch is about. >> Also, this >> would make the Debian package behaves differently than upstream. Has >> this patch been pushed upstream? > No, patch suggestion bug number #491078 [1] The bug is from 2008 and despite numerous releases, it is not present upstream. This makes mini-httpd behaves differently in Debian than in other distributions or when just compiled from sources. This will also break setup of people that were relying on the original behavior, so you would need to add an entry in NEWS.Debian to advertise the change. I would not include the patch until it is vetted by upstream. >> The description of fix-mini-httpd could be "Fix buffer overflow in >> add_to_response". The name of the patch could be >> "add_to_response-buffer-overflow.patch". The stuff about indexes should >> be moved out to a different patch: when your patch is applied upstream, >> you may discard it and forget about this part. >> > Ok, fix name. > Yes, when the upstream fix in tarball original I'm remove patch. > thanks The patch still contains an unrelated change about how to find files like "index.html". Upstream may never fix the index.mini-httpd.html stuff, so you will have to separate the patch at some point. It's better to do it now. -- Debian package sponsoring guidelines: http://vincent.bernat.im/en/debian-package-sponsoring.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
