Bug#704442: unblock: devscripts/2.12.7 (pre-approval dch --bpo fix)

[Thomas Goirand]

On 04/01/2013 10:43 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Have you asked the devscripts maintainers? That's not the sort of change
> I'd personally be happy with unless the maintainers had signed it off.

These days, it seems that devscripts is maintained collectively by a lot
of people. There is 11 persons listed in the Uploaders field.

> (I realise it's now in collab-maint, but my understanding was that the
> intention was to make it easier to contribute rather than easier to
> upload.)
> 
> -my %bpo_dists = ( 60, 'squeeze' );
> -my $latest_bpo_dist = '60';
> +my %bpo_dists = ( 70, 'wheezy' );
> +my $latest_bpo_dist = '70';
> 
> The first of those changes is wrong for as long as uploads to
> squeeze-backports are supported. Apparently my earlier assumption was
> wrong. :-(

My reasoning is that you would use devscripts in Wheezy to backport for
Wheezy, and devscripts from Squeeze, to target squeeze-backports. Though
I admit that could be wrong thinking, if using a pbuilder (or any other
chroot system that would allow you to use dch in $release and build in
$other-release).

> I've just been pointed to the discussion in #703633, CCed to
> -backports at ldo. It would have been helpful if you'd mentioned that in
> the first place... That thread also suggests that the maintainers
> would rather keep unstable's dch generating backports for squeeze
> until the wheezy release has actually happened. In that case, this
> would need to wait until after the release.

There is also others that voiced concerned that Wheezy should be
released with this change. Also, backports for Wheezy are already open
for uploads.

Anyway, I don't think this is very critical. If you would like to forget
about this until the release, and focus on more important things, I'm ok
with that.

Cheers,

Thomas