Re: Upload request: chasquid 1.11-1
On 27 February 2023 3:36:40 pm IST, Alberto Bertogli <albertito@blitiri.com.ar> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:38:55AM +0000, Alberto Bertogli wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 08:55:45AM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 06:33:49PM +0000, Alberto Bertogli wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:28:56PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 02:48:23PM +0000, Alberto Bertogli wrote:
>>>>> > I updated package chasquid to the latest upstream version, 1.11.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/chasquid/
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Can someone please review the changes and upload?
>>>>>
>>>>> Although it seems like there's some change in upstream
>>>>> systemd files. I haven't tested it (I don't use a self-hosted SMTP server) but I
>>>>> did skim thorugh the diffs (which seems OK) and also assume as
>>>>> upstream and package maintainer you tested it already.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for checking and flagging this!
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the new upstream config has been tested against upstream's example
>>>> config file.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, you made me realize I did not check updating the Debian package
>>>> version, which has two issues:
>>>>
>>>> 1) It is missing a key capability from upstream.
>>>>
>>>> This is trivial to fix, and I will update the repo in salsa shortly after
>>>> this email.
>>>
>>> Please do this quickly, as we currently are in soft freeze.
>>>
>>>> 2) How will a package update behave? If the previously installed systemd
>>>> files will get overridden, then it can break working installations.
>>>>
>>>> That's because chasquid's config file won't be necessarily updated to match
>>>> the new systemd files.
>>>
>>> Right. It'd show a prompt with whether or not the user/sysadmin wants to
>>> override the file. If they skip the step and end up keeping their
>>> version, it'd break the install.
>>> I think the onus is still mostly on the user to properly see the diffs
>>> and then take a decision.
>>>
>>> What you probably can do is add a README.Debian to let the sysadmin know
>>> about such changes, but, but ...
>>>
>>>> So depending on the answer to #2 I will end up reversting these changes for
>>>> Debian :(
>>>
>>> That being said, such changes look in-appropriate at this stage in the
>>> release, which is mostly the time only for targeted fixes. So at least
>>> for this time frame, I would suggest reverting this change.
>>
>> Thanks for all the details. This course of action looks good to me, I will revert the changes and let you know when they're ready for review.
>
>Done!
>
>https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/chasquid/-/commit/9d5be7110f6864c85a3976ef4c0d7833a505fc22
>
>I reviewed the differences with debdiff and also extracted the 3 versions (1.10-1, 1.11-1 and 1.11-2), and the diff between /etc (default config files) and /lib (systemd files) shows that 1.10-1 and 1.11-2 are identical (while 1.11-1 has the now-unwanted changes, as expected).
>
>The whole-tree diff between 1.10-1 and 1.11-2 only contain binary and documentation changes, as expected.
Thanks. But you also said "It is missing a key capability from upstream." above.
What exactly is the change, and can you push the fix anyway (I only see a revert commit)?
Best,
Nilesh
Reply to: