Bug#773378: RFS: ledgersmb/1.3.46-1
Hi Vincent!
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Vincent Cheng <vcheng@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Robert James Clay <jame@rocasa.us> wrote:
>> Package: sponsorship-requests
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ledgersmb"
>>
>> * Package name : ledgersmb
>> Version : 1.3.46-1
>> Upstream Author : Chris Travers <chris@metatrontech.com>
>> * URL : http://www.ledgersmb.org
>> * License : GPL-2+
>> Section : web
>>
>> It builds those binary packages:
>>
>> ledgersmb - financial accounting and ERP program
>>
> Just a few small questions/comments from skimming through the debdiff:
>
> - You added a small dpkg-maintscript-helper snippet to
> debian/ledgersmb.postrm, specifically checking if dpkg is new enough
> to support mv_conffile before using it; what happens if dpkg isn't
> sufficiently new enough to support that / is that something that
> should just fail?
> You can simply add a Pre-Depends:
> ${misc:Pre-Depends} (which will add a pre-dependency on the
> appropriate version of dpkg)
That would do that simply because that form of it (mv_conffile) is
used in the mantainer scripts?
> if you want to use
> dpkg-maintscript-helper and not have to worry about whether dpkg is
> new enough (and avoid that "if dpkg-maintscript-helper supports
> mv_conffile" logic).
That version doesn't quite go back far enough for where I may want to
support the package. Although it's getting less likely to be an issue
over time. I'll admit I haven't needed to help with support on
squeeze or lucid recently; are you thinking that I'm worrying too
much about a situation that isn't very likely and that would need to
be supported differently in any case? (For instance, a separate
backport for it, if necessary.)
> - Why bump the version number in debian/NEWS when there isn't a new
> entry, and nothing else in the file has changed aside from the
> timestamp? That seems likely to just annoy apt-listchanges users.
To ensure that it is taken as being current and will be seen again
as necessary. (I've corresponded with people who didn't look at it
until I pointed it out that the info was there.)
>
> Also, note that since Debian is in freeze right now, if you wish to
> target unstable, any (RC) bugfix uploads that you wish to get into
> jessie would then have to go through testing-proposed-updates (which
> the release team apparently really doesn't like). Are you sure you're
> ok with that?
None of the three bugs I'm seeking to close with this upload are RC,
so I had not anticipated being able to update the package in jessie in
any case. (The new package upgrade I'm working on now involves an
upgrade from v1.3.x to v1.4.x; this upgrade for 1.3.46 is currently
the last in the 1.3.46 series.)
--
Robert J. Clay
rjclay@gmail.com
Reply to: