Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?

[Barak A. Pearlmutter]

Sure, can change it to 1.0.20-hotfix-1 or can edit debian/watch to
skip the -hotfix tag and change it to 1.0.20-1. Or use 1.0.20-1 and
let uscan whine about 1.0.20-hotfix.

Given the changes all around, I don't think we want to actually push
into Debian until 1.1.0 is released anyway. So whether the changes are
representable or enormous or whatever doesn't really matter.

What do you think: -hotfix or not -hotfix?

Cheers,

--Barak.

Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?

[Martin Quinson]

Le Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:52:02AM +0100, Barak A. Pearlmutter a écrit :
> There is a pristine-tar branch on both salsa and my GitHub fork repo

I *think* that the issue comes from uscan:

| W: Unable to locate package xournalpp
| Trying uscan --download --download-current-version ...
| uscan warn: In debian/watch no matching hrefs for version 1.1.0 in watch line
|   https://github.com/xournalpp/xournalpp/tags 
(?:.*?/)(?:[-_]?(\d[\-+\.:\~\da-zA-Z]*))(?i)(?:\.(?:tar\.xz|tar\.bz2|tar\.gz|zip|tgz|tbz|txz))
| Could not find any location for xournalpp_1.1.0.orig.tar.*

Maybe we should downgrade the entry in debian/changelog to an already
released version such as 1.0 to please uscan?

Thanks, Mt.

-- 
J'ai un COT. C'est comme un TOC, mais dans l'ordre comme il faut.
I have a CDO. It's like OCD, but in alphabetical order as it should be.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?

[Barak A. Pearlmutter]

There is a pristine-tar branch on both salsa and my GitHub fork repo
barak/...

Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?

[Martin Quinson]

Ok, the pipeline is launched. Thanks for the invitation ;)

I would not say that I'm very involved, actually. If I can help, I'm glad, but 
if I don't have to, I'm happy :)
If you have difficulties with something, drop me an email. 

As for the pipeline, it failed, because it seems that there is no pristine-tar 
branch in the git. I thought that you were using git-buildpackage, but maybe 
I'm wrong?

Mt

Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?

[Barak A. Pearlmutter]

Sure, always happy for help. Please do!

Would you like to take the package, or co-maintain, team-maintain,
whatever it's called nowadays?
I was using it for teaching, whereas you seem much more involved.

Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?

[Martin Quinson]

Thanks for the update (and for all the work).

Is it OK if I change what needs to be so that the package gets automatically 
built on salsa's CI, with lintian and everything launched on it?
(I'm a DD so I have the technical right to do so, but I'm asking for your 
permission anyway)

Thanks, Mt.

Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?

[Barak A. Pearlmutter]

Yeah, I think right now it's in good shape. I'm waiting for an
official upstream release, at which point I'll upload.
Since it's not in Debian right now, there's no reason to hold off
until after the Debian release. (If there were I'd upload to
Debian/experimental.)

I've been tracking the upstream repo, so I should be able to just hit
the button.

Cheers,

--Barak.

Bug#927076: xournalpp packaging in Debian: how can we help?

[Martin Quinson]

Hello Barak,

I'm glad to see that you are still progressing in the packaging of
xournalpp. Last year, you said that the main show stopper was the svg
licenses, that were unclear. But if I understand correctly, you fixed
it too with the following commit.
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/xournalpp/-/commit/c58bef48700738fc05e48bc1d4f61cf3830f708c

Now, the debian/copyright file looks good to me. Am I right? Is there
anything else that should be done, or are we only waiting for the
Debian release before you can upload this package to unstable? How
could we help?

I have another question about the version of xournalpp that you are
packaging. It seems to me that you are tracking upstream master,
right? Wouldn't it be preferable to track released versions instead?
I'm unsure here as I did not dig into upstream releasing policy, so my
first feeling may well be wrong.

Finally, would you mind if I change what should be on the repo to
activate the automatic build pipelines from
https://salsa.debian.org/salsa-ci-team/pipeline ? That would give us
the packages as build artefact, so that I can use your version of the
package without building locally ;)

Thanks for all the good job done here,
Mt.

-- 
The great thing about TCP jokes is that you always get them.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature