(CCing everyone who recently touched this...) I wrote in #1002851: > FTR, I am looking at this.
Andreas wrote: > The git repository is missing the NMUs -9.[1-4], and the package could > be missing the corresponding changes, I haven't checked. The debian/changelog was also missing the NMUs. I did some dgit import-dsc to reproduce various elements of the the history, and when I build it the 10.1 NMU has a similar file list to 9. The changelog entry for 9.2 NMU says "Move xdelta-config libxdelta2-dev". After retconning a git history of dgit branches based on the theory that 10.1 was based on 9 rather than 9.4, I was able to "git merge" and had only textual or trivial conflicts to resolve in debian/rules and debian/control. The result seems to build, after I fixed a multiarch paths problem. I will be uploading the result shortly. If I may do a bit of root cause analysis, and make a bit of a plug for my own tooling: Debian's "usual~ git usage practices are terrible. They set the uploader of 10.2 up to make this mistake. So I don't think this reflects badly on the NMUer in question. The solution is not for us to all "try harder" or "be more careful"; the solution is for us to adopt better workflows which are supported by more competent software. I discussed some of these issues on my blog in September https://diziet.dreamwidth.org/9556.html One thing I failed to mention there is that of course if you use the salsa history you may miss NMUs. I think I will write another blog post about this :-). If you want to do an NMU and like to use git, dgit may suit you. If you use dgit you cannot make this mistake. Thanks, Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
