Harald Dunkel writes ("Re: new network-manager-strongswan package [and 1 more messages]"): > Sorry for the confusion. Of course n-m-s is not in salsa (yet). I was > working on mg (my other package) in parallel, which *is* in salsa.
Ah. No problem. > It would be nice to start with 1.4.5-1 on salsa. But AFAIK I need a > sponsor (somebody with a full functional account) for either creating a > repo for an official Debian package, or for getting a real account. > Currently, if I try to create a project, then it gets a funny looking > URL > https://salsa.debian.org/harri-guest/ > > instead of the expected > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/network-manager-strongswan > :-( Let me work on this first. ... Fixed I think. I have created this: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/network-manager-strongswan and made you ("harri-guest") a maintainer of it. I think you can do all the rest of the setup yourself. Let me know if you want anything else doing. > On 2/24/20 3:02 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > > I looked at the diff etc. and I have some observations: > > > > * It would be nice to add a Vcs-Git header. > > I am OK with this, but I would suggest to wait for the move to salsa, > see below. OK. > > * I noticed you changed the Build-Depends. There is a change to > > debhelper, which is expected. But there are also changes to the > > network-manager build-dependencies. I looked for some file in > > upstream wqher etehse requirements are documented, and/or something > > in the debian/changelog to explain or document the change, but > > found nothing. Can you please explain ? > > > > The version numbers of the dependencies have been changed according to > the packages found in Buster. I didn't feel confident with the old Network > Manager version numbers. n-m-s 1.4.5-1 has never been built or tested > with these anicient versions. Sorry, I forgot to mention it in the > changelog. I guess this is up to you. My personal preference is not to update B-D unless I know of a reason why it wouldn't work. But I know many people adopt your approach. Thanks for the explanation. > > * Please can you consider providing an explanation of the patch > > glib-private.patch *inside* that patch file. (Ideally patches > > should be in git-format-patch format or or DEP-3 format.) > > About glib-private.patch: I am not quite sure what you mean. I don't > see a nested patch, just debian/patches/glib-private.patch. Apparently > it *is* in git format. No, I mean: inside the patch file, there should be an explanation. $ head -3 debian/patches/glib-private.patch diff --git a/src/frontends/gnome/properties/nm-strongswan.c b/src/frontends/gnome/properties/nm-strongswan.c index de15c4271..d261dcb7a 100644 Compare: $ head -13 /home/ian/things/Debian/Psutils/psutils/debian/patches/psnup1-remove-a-confusing-and-unnecessar From: Reuben Thomas <r...@sc3d.org> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 19:37:28 +0000 X-Dgit-Generated: 1.17.dfsg-4 45990e7c75dde21ad20a9e6e22b2d8e980b92459 Subject: psnup(1): Remove a confusing and unnecessary qualification about units. Apropos of #695179. --- --- psutils-1.17.dfsg.orig/psnup.man +++ psutils-1.17.dfsg/psnup.man @@ -54,10 +54,7 @@ option gives the paper height, normally specified in > > * Since you have already committed your finalised 1.4.5-1 version, it > > would be best not to make more commits before bumping the changelog > > version again. So, if in response to this review you would like to > > make changes, rather than give explanations, please use 1.4.5-2 for > > your next revision. > > > > Sorry about that. Since nobody except you knows the current git repo > for n-m-s, do you think it would be possible to delete the unwanted > signed tag, using > > git push --delete origin tagName > ? IMO there is nothing wrong with just going to a new version, -2. This will all be much less confusing and not involve deleting tags, etc. etc. Integers are cheap. > > * Indeed, there is no need for you to make a signed tag. Because > > salsa is access controlled I feel I can trust it enough for this, at > > least as a baseline for review. If you like, feel free to leave the > > changelog as UNRELEASED; I am happy to do that change to `unstable' > > as part of the upload and push to salsa. If you would like to work > > this way, please give user `iwj' access to the repo. > > I am not sure about the UNRELEASED. Usually I push the package to my > own repositories run by reprepro. It doesn't like the UNRELEASED. Ah. Well, another tactic is to add a ~pre to the Debian revision. Eg 1.4.5-1~pre2 or something. But this is up to you. All I'm really going to insisti on is that I shouldn't need to delete tags. I can bump the version myself if you like but then you'll have to pull from me (or salsa, once the code is there). Should I push 1.4.5-1 right away or should I expect revisions ? Regards, Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.