Hi Jakub, On 27/02/2016 19:04, Jakub Wilk wrote: > [When filing a bug, please use X-Debbugs-CC instead of plain CC, so that the > copied person receives the message with bug number from the BTS.]
Thank you for the hint. I will do that next time. > * Giulio Paci <giuliop...@gmail.com>, 2016-02-16, 01:03: >> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/collab-maint/openfst.git > > I had only a very quick look at the package so far: > >> * Drop 1001, 1002, 1003. >> * Avoid 2001 patch usage. > > Someone who's not familiar with the package history would have no idea what > this means. Please be more verbose here. I added full patch names and reported that "2001" patch is no more needed. > Do you plan to forward unresolved-symbols.diff upstream? Actually I already did it (several times). I updated the patch header accordingly. > Typo in README.Debian: > binaries depends -> binaries depend > > Typos in fstlinear.1 and fstloglinearapply.1: > chracter -> character I fixed those typos. > The tarball uscan downloads is different that the one pristine-tar generates: > > $ md5sum openfst_1.5.1.orig.tar.gz.* > 9b6e9a5042b986919f62c5184e3e352d openfst_1.5.1.orig.tar.gz.pristine-tar > 8869e44c5a4af65409ae78b9f482b40e openfst_1.5.1.orig.tar.gz.uscan > > Do you know how did that happen? Yes, I know. Upstream uploaded more than one tarball with minimal changes fixing minor issues. I already talked about this issue with upstream and about the implications. But still I do not know about their decision on this subject. I packaged "http://openfst.org/twiki/bin/viewfile/FST/FstDownload?filename=openfst-1.5.1.tar.gz;rev=1"; and noticed the behaviour when upstream was at "http://openfst.org/twiki/bin/viewfile/FST/FstDownload?filename=openfst-1.5.1.tar.gz;rev=3";. Right now they are at "http://openfst.org/twiki/bin/viewfile/FST/FstDownload?filename=openfst-1.5.1.tar.gz;rev=8";. I still did not check the last revision. I have not found any reasonable way to detect when the package changes. Essentially the algorythm should be: check for latest version of the package, if the same package exist with rev=<something>, then the package is at the "same version" + revision <something>+1. Given the current situation, do you think I should upgrade the upstream files in pristine-tar? Should I have different versioning with respect to upstream or should I maintain the same version scheme even if several versions collapse into the same version? Bests, Giulio
