On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 22:35:11 +0000, mario.limoncie...@dell.com wrote: > > From: Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> > > That's a lot like what I did. I'll recheck soon whether my branch would > > work with their patch instead of mine.
Yes, their patch is fine. I slightly preferred my version, but not enough for it to be worth taking upstream. I've opened https://salsa.debian.org/efi-team/libjcat/-/merge_requests/3 which applies their patch instead of the one attached to this bug, and adds the same autopkgtests I used before (they still pass). > As a general statement since we have a super responsive upstream I would > rather > flesh out non debian/* patches upstream immediately and then pull them back as > cherry-picks and add packaging to match them at the same time. Yes to a point, but since 0.1.0 didn't compile on the buildds *at all*, I wanted to get through at least #955234 with downstream patches first, on the basis that a package is better than no package. I've simplified the patch that was part of the solution to #955234 further, and sent it to <https://github.com/hughsie/libjcat/pull/23>. smcv