On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:09 AM, Arnaud <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 02/20/2018 12:08 AM, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > > Are you certain that this commit is actually a requirement, or just > happens to be the latest version the containerd people tried? > > > It's just the version that is vendored by containerd. I assumed they used > it for a good reason, that's all. Definitely not certain that it's needed. > > Did you test the version currently in Debian and run into issues? > > > No I didn't try, right now I'm just trying to package and bump everything > required by containerd, then package containerd, then test the whole thing. > > > I’m not saying importing new upstream versions isn’t a good idea, I’m just > trying to make sure you don’t do any extra work you don’t want to do. > > > I get your point. I thought the best approach was to bump every dependency > first, then package the missing dependencies. But maybe it's better to > package what's missing first, then try containerd, and then bump > dependencies to newer versions if it's really a need. Especially if I bump > to a snapshot version like in the current case, it's always better to avoid > that and stick to official releases, when they exist. > > > >> - the current debian package for urfave-cli is on anonscm.debian.org. So >> here I had to create a repository on salsa.debian.org. Maybe you don't >> like that and already have a procedure for migrating packages from >> anonscm to salsa. >> > > While it is fine to create new repositories on salsa, we should either add > this repository to the rewritemap ASAP (+cc aviau) or don’t move it for the > time being. > > > What is the rewritemap ? > See https://salsa.debian.org/salsa/AliothRewriter/tree/master for details. > Is Alexandre Viau the person in charge of migrating go packages to salsa > in general ? > Yes. > > For the repository we're talking about right now, I understand there's no > need to bump the version right now, as long as I'm not sure it's needed. > > Should I just delete it, or at least take it out of the go packages group, > and keep it as a personal repo ? > Yes please (whichever of the two you prefer). > > > Overall, your changes look good to me. Let me know which way you prefer > to proceed regarding repository location, fix the changelog, and I can > upload it for you. > > > Let's just wait until we're sure this version bump is really needed, if > you're ok with that. > Sure! > > Thanks again for all the thorough feedback ! > > Arnaud > > -- Best regards, Michael
_______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
