RFU jed 1:0.99.19~pre143-1

[Jörg Sommer]

Hi Rafael,

Rafael Laboissiere schrieb am Mon 23. Jun, 16:40 (+0200):
> * Rafael Laboissiere <rafael at debian.org> [2008-06-23 13:30]:
> 
> > * Jörg Sommer <joerg at alea.gnuu.de> [2008-06-22 22:19]:
> > 
> > > But we can't replace the XWINDOWS, because it's a keyword of S‐Lang.
> > 
> > Thanks for the explanation, I understand the problem now.  We should add a
> > Lintian override for this.

Yes.

> > Reading again Russ Allbery's post to d-d-a [1], I think you are mostly
> > right.  However, I think we can safely bump the Standards-Version to 3.8.0,
> > because of this:
> > 
> >     "This new recommendation is *not* RC for lenny, only a recommendation."
> > 
> > If you do not object, I will bump the Standards-Version to 3.8.0.

I think we can't claim to support Standards-Version 3.8.0 while not
providing such a file. I think what Russ said is that it's right to have
packages they do not have the Standards-Version 3.8.0. But I think it is
a policy violation if we claim to be conform with this version while we
do not have such a document.

> Okay, I prepared two patches for the above.  You will find them attached
> below.  If you agree,

Sorry, no.

Firstly, what about starting a new version 0.99.19~pre143-2. I've
tagged the old version and it seems to be much clearer.

Secondly, the patch for the override makes changes to pieces out of
scope.

-  * debian.control: Bump Standards-Version to 3.8.0 (no changes needed) [RL]
+  * debian/control: Bump Standards-Version to 3.8.0 (no changes needed) [RL]

And you should not update the date. You should start a new version with
“Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000”. This avoids to have this line in
every diff and eases cherry-picks, mergen and rebases.

- -- Rafael Laboissiere <rafael at debian.org>  Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:31:17 +0200
+ -- Rafael Laboissiere <rafael at debian.org>  Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:08:29 +0200

+  * debian/jed-common.lintian-overrides: Add override for Lintian warning
+    about wrong spelling of XWINDOWS (this is a false positive, because
+    this word is a S-Lang keyword) [RL]
+  * debian/rules: Call dh_lintian for jed-common
+  * debian/control: Build-depend on debhelper >= 6.0.7, since this is the
+    version where dh_lintian appeared
+  * debian/compat: Bump debhelper compatibility level to 6

Is it really worth to mention the change in every file? Why not “Bumped
the debhelper compatibility level to 6 and added the version 6.0.7 in the
Build-Depends (BTW: You forgot the S) field to get support for
dh_lintian.” Maybe you can join the other messages, too.

And what about making two commits: the first for the bump and the second
for the lintian override. This seems to be much clearer to me.

> I will apply them and upload the package to experimental.  Also, I can
> git push the patches to the Alioth repository (BTW, could you tell me
> again the cookbook for doing it?)

% git fetch
% git checkout -b 0.99.19 origin/0.99.19
% xjed debian/changelog
% git commit -m "Start a new version" debian/changelog
% xjed debian/…
% git add debian/…
% git commit
…
% xjed debian/changelog
% git commit -m "Release of 1:0.99.19~pre143-2" debian/changelog
% git tag 1%3A0.99.19%7Epre143-2

% git push origin 0.99.19
% git push --tags

or use

% git push origin 0.99.19:refs/heads/rl-0.99.19

and give me a short change for a review.

And can you include the fix for the rxvt problem?

Bye, Jörg.
-- 
Prof: Ist etwas an der Tafel nicht zu lesen? Sie schauen so komisch.
Studentin: Nein, es ist alles in Ordnung.
Prof: Aber ihr Gesicht sieht überhaupt nicht in Ordnung aus.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-jed-devel/attachments/20080623/979ca607/attachment.pgp