Control: tags -1 - pending On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:01:06PM +0100, Fabio Fantoni wrote: > I'm also making some improvements that I know are needed for the cinnamon > packages but slowly so as not to risk coming close to burnout again > (spending less time on the PC, at least in my free time), I'll add to the > list also to add the missed breaks of reverse deps.
Ok, if you handle it this way via additional breaks, then I think that's sufficient for this transition and you can consider this bug resolved once 1) the dpkg change is uploaded to unstable, and 2) there's a subsequent cinnamon transition in unstable with updated breaks. > > I didn't look carefully about the time_t change as today's is the first > notice I've seen regarding one of the packages I maintain and also with > immediate NMU. I saw the transition on debian-devel ML I had looked fast at > a list of packages involved but there were no packages that I maintain > (which is why I didn't look exactly as I didn't have time and thought that > there was no were afflicted packages). Well, there were several attempts to include a dd-list for maintainers to review? Your name is in the list here fwiw https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/01/msg00041.html (Unfortunately lists.debian.org has been silently dropping messages on me throughout the month, so not all of my attempts to notify maintainers via debian-devel succeeded!) I am un-tagging this bug 'pending' so it's clear this isn't a package we as NMUers should be uploading to unstable. On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:52:42PM +0100, Fabio Fantoni wrote: > I applied NMU diff to git experimental (with the work for 6.0 in progress) > and I spotted 2 mistake, one important is missed breaks with > libcinnamon-desktop4: > https://salsa.debian.org/cinnamon-team/cinnamon-desktop/-/commit/b06e59910a83b2252b866d051ffe7c5ea6f6742f > This will cause serious issue and must be fixed before upload to unstable > FWIK. Indeed, sorry, it looks like the conversion script wasn't able to handle the case where an existing Breaks: field is present, but it's multiline and there are no packages listed on the first line. I'll take a look at fixing the script. But if you prefer to manage the transition with Breaks: rather than a package rename, then you can forgo all of this anyway for your package. > About dpkg change to wait before unstable upload is about a version still > not uploaded, right? I don't saw new dpkg version in experimental Correct. Since the experimental uploads are just for clearing binary NEW and doing usrmerge analysis, we determined belatedly that no dpkg upload was needed. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
