Hi Jonathan, thanks for your swift response. To avoid any further delay, maybe you could check out the proposed handling and my question because I'd like to make sure to get it right.
Am Montag, dem 01.07.2024 um 18:49 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Wiltshire: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 02:38:14AM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > > > I had to make a second upload because I used the wrong source for the > > upload (I started with the Go-team repository, but then decided to > > introduce the code to the Debian LTS repository, where I finalized my > > work. Unfortunately, I uploaded a build from the first, which was > > incomplete. After I discovered my mistake, I built from the correct one > > and uploaded runc 1.0.0~rc93+ds1-5+deb11u5. The debdiff will show that > > that it is the one that I uploaded to #1072248. Sorry and thanks. > > Fair enough, but you didn't give any clues in your changelog that a > regression fix was needed, or mention it in this request. > You're committed with 1.0.0~rc93+ds1-5+deb11u4 now that it's in the > archive. > > I'm also rejecting your new 1.0.0~rc93+ds1-5+deb11u5 because it changes > history in the changelog and still has an unhelpful message about syncing > with a repository users know nothing about. > > Please don't change history, and send a debdiff (relative to u4) of a > proposed upload fixing the regressions as 1.0.0~rc93+ds1-5+deb11u5 and a > proper changelog. Do not upload without further approval. Ok. So you'll get a debdiff between the uploaded u4 and the proposed u5. The changelog will be adjusted to reflect the changes between these versions and explain the regression. Is it ok if I clean up the changelog from the u4 upload (there are some redundant lines at the end of that entry from gbp) and mention that in the changelog entry of u5? Or do you want the changelog entry for u4 being preserved as is? Regards, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
