Your message dated Wed, 28 Jun 2023 10:19:27 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1009071 closed by [email protected] ()
has caused the Debian Bug report #1009071,
regarding rust-ashpd: diff for NMU version 0.1.0-1.1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1009071: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1009071
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: rust-ashpd
Version: 0.1.0-1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch pending
Dear maintainer,
I've prepared an NMU for rust-ashpd (versioned as 0.1.0-1.1) and
uploaded it without delay, due to current package being completely broken.
Regards,
- Jonas
diff -Nru rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/changelog rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/changelog
--- rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/changelog 2022-02-06 20:23:00.000000000 +0100
+++ rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/changelog 2022-04-06 21:38:58.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+rust-ashpd (0.1.0-1.1) unstable; urgency=medium
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * fix unsatisfiable dependency and failure to build from source:
+ + extend patch and dependencies
+ to link against librust-gdk-0.14+default-dev
+ (not librust-gdk-0.13+default-dev never in Debian)
+
+ -- Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> Wed, 06 Apr 2022 21:38:58 +0200
+
rust-ashpd (0.1.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium
* Package ashpd 0.1.0 from crates.io using debcargo 2.4.4
diff -Nru rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/control rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/control
--- rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/control 2022-02-06 20:23:00.000000000 +0100
+++ rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/control 2022-04-06 21:35:25.000000000 +0200
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
Depends:
${misc:Depends},
librust-enumflags2-0.6+default-dev,
- librust-gdk-0.13+default-dev,
+ librust-gdk-0.14+default-dev,
librust-serde-1+default-dev,
librust-serde-1+derive-dev,
librust-serde-repr-0.1+default-dev,
diff -Nru rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/patches/relax-deps.patch
rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/patches/relax-deps.patch
--- rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/patches/relax-deps.patch 2022-02-06
20:23:00.000000000 +0100
+++ rust-ashpd-0.1.0/debian/patches/relax-deps.patch 2022-04-06
21:35:47.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,6 +1,15 @@
--- a/Cargo.toml
+++ b/Cargo.toml
-@@ -42,14 +42,14 @@ version = "0.19"
+@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
+ version = "0.6"
+
+ [dependencies.gdk]
+-version = "0.13"
++version = "0.14"
+ optional = true
+
+ [dependencies.serde]
+@@ -42,14 +42,14 @@
version = "0.19"
[dependencies.zbus]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Jeremy and Matthias, and others following along.
Quoting Jeremy Bícha (2023-06-27 23:12:35)
> I don't understand why you reopened this bug. The NMU was done for
> Debian 12 and Testing. There is a new major release in Unstable that
> doesn't suffer from the bug the NMU was designed to fix. (It has a
> different bug but there is already an RC bug for it.)
>
> I don't see any action Maintainers can do here…except close this bug.
>
> Admittedly, the new release in Unstable happened today so maybe the
> situation has changed after the bug was reopened.
Three things makes this confusing to unpack, as I (now) see it:
a) This bugreport simply tracks approving of an NMU
b) Bugs track packages in Debian, not packaging code in salsa
c) I have a tendency to write mysterious sentences
Regarding a) I was indeed confusing this bug with another. Not with
release-critical bug#1038242, however, but with an unreported wishlist
bug of providing a newer release - which happens to be solved with the
upload related to closing this bugreport. Reopening an NMU-approval
bugreport is silly nitpicking and I am sorry for that.
Regarding b) and how package maintainers can do better (disregarding
this concrete case being a silly nitpicking issue not deserving any
better), the problem is closing already when _pushing_ a package towards
Debian. A bugreport tracks a *package* not package *maintainers*. A
bug is not solved when package maintainers have done all they could to
solve it, but instead when the package itself no longer contain the bug
being tracked.
What package maintainers did here was upload a package and close the
related bugreport.
What package maintainers could do better in future is to *embed* a bug
closure within the packaging so that when the package actually enters
Debian the bug gets closed. Such embedding is done by adding the magic
string "Closes: bug#1009071" (or "closes: #1009071) in the changelog
entry. Additionally, if package maintainers want to signal that they've
done what they could and now only wait for machinery, they can tag the
bugreport as "pending", e.g. with the following console command:
bts tags 1009071 pending
or by running the command `tagpending` from within the source package,
which will scan latest changelog entry for pending bug closures to tag.
Regarding c) I guess Matthias misread my cryptic message as saying "this
bug is not fixed in Salsa" when what I intended to say was "this
bugreport should not be closed already when the bug is fixed in salsa".
I apologize for my weird unhelpful choice of words.
All this said, the bug is now truly solved (since two days ago), and I
hereby lose this bugreport.
Kind regards, and thanks for upgrading ashpd,
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
--- End Message ---
