retitle 1064297 RFS: lsm/1.0.21-1 -- Link connectivity monitor tool
As the source package has changed the package could be retrieve by the following url.
The source builds the following binary packages: foolsm - Link connectivity monitor tool lsm - Link connectivity monitor tool - transitional package To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/lsm/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -xhttps://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lsm/lsm_1.0.21-1.dsc Em 24/03/2024 16:50, Lucas Castro escreveu:
Em 23/03/2024 13:08, Tobias Frost escreveu:Control: tags -1 moreinfo The source package name is still being renamed, and the source package rename is not explictly stated in the changelog.Source package already kept old project name, only binary renamed.I had talked about the source package rename on IRC, and no problem was pointed as serious then the my conclusion it wasn't going to be a problem.But, by the way, it's going to be kept as it was.(I think this renane shouldn't be done, to keep the history of the package, not only the tracker but also the BTS and all the other services working on source packages.) (You should also bump the timestamp in the d/changelog, when uploading a new package to mentors.)Timestamp bumped.The patch in package should be fowarded; as it only changes *comments*, consider dropping it completly.Dropped the patch, ASAP I'll forward to upstream. Already uploaded to mentors.-- tobiThanks Tobias.On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 22:25:04 -0300 Lucas Castro <lu...@gnuabordo.com.br> wrote:Em 06/03/2024 05:49, Daniel Gröber escreveu:Hi Lucas, On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 03:29:49PM -0300, Lucas Castro wrote:Are you sure you want to change the source package name? Doing sofracturesthe history of the package on tracker.d.o and it's not reallynecessary.The upstream has changed software name but it's a good point about tracker.d.o.Right, so users will try to `apt install foolsm` in the future, butthesource package name is largeley irellevant to them.Quick package review: - d/postinst: I don't think it's useful to print the messageabout editingthe config. I've only seen packages do that in specialcircumstances, doyou have a justification for it being necessary here?Really, really not. I really would like improve that, I guess towrite gooddoc and manual pages is enough.I would argue users (sysadmins in this case) are going to befamiliar withthe concept of having to configure a package before it becomesuseful andwhile the daemon not being started at package installation is unconventional in Debian automatic config reloading is by far notuniversalso any config change to make lsm useful is going to elicit a restart anyway. So I just don't see why we'd want a conspicuous message tellingpeople whatthey already know :)- You declare Replaces+Conflicts on lsm but you don't seem totake anycare for the new binary package to actually be compatiblewith the oldone since the config location changed.I'm in doubt, when the old config exist, if set dpkg to copy theold configfrom old location to the new one or if I just print/show up amessage tousers notifying about path update requirement.I think an automatic upgrade is the way to go in this case as longas theconfig format is still fully compatible to the old lsm-1.0.4, butsincecopying will leave cruft behind for the user to cleanup manually Ithink weshould mv the config.If it's good/allowed do the copy, it could be applied in postinst.I thinkprint/show up message is rightest way.Consider that people upgrade Debian systems for many, many yearswithoutreinstalling. So every bit of cruft we leave behind due totransitions suchas this accumulates. I don't see a technical need for not doing soin thiscase so I think we should clean up behind ourselves and move theconfig tothe new location. You should then absoluteley print a message in the log to note thisfact,but perhaps not as conspicuously as you're printing the "configureme"message. Something like "Moving $OLD_PATH to $NEW_PATH" shouldsufficesince the package(s) involved should be obvious from the filenames.Just uploaded to mentors again, now the update occur smoothly.--DanielThanks for taking time on testing update.
OpenPGP_0x42F79A5E0A4D5598.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature