Bug#1020767: RFS: lsb-release-minimal/12.0-1 -- Linux Standard Base version reporting utility (minimal implementation)
Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "lsb-release-minimal": * Package name : lsb-release-minimal Version : 12.0-1 * URL : https://gioele.io/lsb-release-minimal * License : ISC * Vcs : https://salsa.debian.org/gioele/lsb-release-minimal Section : misc The source builds the following binary packages: lsb-release - Linux Standard Base version reporting utility (minimal implementation) To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL: https://mentors.debian.net/package/lsb-release-minimal/ Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command: dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lsb-release-minimal/lsb-release-minimal_12.0-1.dsc Changes since the last upload: lsb-release-minimal (12.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release * d/control: Rename binary package to `lsb-release` * d/tests/alternative-bin-sh: Test with busybox sh Regards, -- Gioele Barabucci
Bug#1020767: RFS: lsb-release-minimal/12.0-1 -- Linux Standard Base version reporting utility (minimal implementation)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:39:08AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > * Package name : lsb-release-minimal >Version : 12.0-1 > lsb-release-minimal (12.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium > . >* New upstream release >* d/control: Rename binary package to `lsb-release` >* d/tests/alternative-bin-sh: Test with busybox sh Looks good, but I don't think leaving users of unstable/testing who have helped us test, with an unsupported package, would be nice. Thus, could you please add a dummy transitional binary "lsb-release-minimal" that depends on lsb-release? Meow! -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ The ill-thought conversion to time64_t will make us suffer from ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ the Y292B problem. So let's move the Epoch by 43545140006400 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ (plus a safety margin in case of bad physicists) and make it ⠈⠳⣄ unsigned -- that'll almost double the range.
Bug#1020767: RFS: lsb-release-minimal/12.0-1 -- Linux Standard Base version reporting utility (minimal implementation)
On 26/09/22 10:47, Adam Borowski wrote: On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 10:39:08AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote: * Package name : lsb-release-minimal Version : 12.0-1 lsb-release-minimal (12.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release * d/control: Rename binary package to `lsb-release` * d/tests/alternative-bin-sh: Test with busybox sh Looks good, but I don't think leaving users of unstable/testing who have helped us test, with an unsupported package, would be nice. Thus, could you please add a dummy transitional binary "lsb-release-minimal" that depends on lsb-release? Makes sense. The updated package is now on mentors.d.n: https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/lsb-release-minimal/lsb-release-minimal_12.0-1.dsc Regards, -- Gioele Barabucci
Bug#1020767: RFS: lsb-release-minimal/12.0-1 -- Linux Standard Base version reporting utility (minimal implementation)
On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:39:08 +0200 Gioele Barabucci wrote: Changes since the last upload: lsb-release-minimal (12.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release * d/control: Rename binary package to `lsb-release` This looks like a package hijack. Or is this in coordination with the existing lsb-release package?
Bug#1020767: RFS: lsb-release-minimal/12.0-1 -- Linux Standard Base version reporting utility (minimal implementation)
On 26/09/22 23:26, Bastian Germann wrote: On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 10:39:08 +0200 Gioele Barabucci wrote: Changes since the last upload: lsb-release-minimal (12.0-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * New upstream release * d/control: Rename binary package to `lsb-release` This looks like a package hijack. Or is this in coordination with the existing lsb-release package? Having `lsb-release-minimal` take over `lsb-relase` has been suggested by, and is being coordinated with, the `src:lsb` maintainers: https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-init-diversity/2022-August/005671.html Regards, -- Gioele Barabucci
