Re: reform-tools_1.82-2~bpo13+1_both.changes REJECTED

Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]> Fri, 05 Dec 2025 18:22:05 -0500

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.backports.general
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Hello Johannes,

Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <[email protected]> writes:

> Quoting Micha Lenk (2025-12-05 16:01:20)
>> d/p/reform-power-daemon.patch certainly is a good idea, but it isn't
>> mentioned in debian/changelog. Please document all the changes you did in
>> debian/changelog.
>
> I don't understand the above. The top changelog for my upload looks like this:
>
>   1 reform-tools (1.82-2~bpo13+1) trixie-backports; urgency=medium
>   2
>   3   * Rebuild for trixie-backports.
>   4
>   5  -- Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <[email protected]>  Sat, 29 Nov 2025 07:50:37 +0100
>   6
>   7 reform-tools (1.82-2) unstable; urgency=medium
>   8
>   9   * enable and start reform-power-daemon by default upon installation and
>  10     upgrade
>  11
>  12  -- Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues <[email protected]>  Fri, 21 Nov 2025 08:22:34 +0100
>
> The topmost entry mentions the rebuild for backports and the one below is the
> entry about reform-power-daemon. What is the problem?

I'm not a ftpmaster, but I think it's pretty clear that Micha Lenk is
saying that 1.82-2 would have been rejected if it had to pass NEW.  It
looks like you maintain the package in unstable, so this means you can
make a 1.82-3.  In that changelog entry you write the requested
information and make it clear that these actions should have been part
of the Debian revision of this package that introduced
"reform-power-daemon.patch".  Anyone who reads
/usr/share/doc/reform-tools/[Debian.]changelog.gz, or who runs apt
changelog reform-tools, or who runs apt source and then reads the
changelog provided there needs to know about
"reform-power-daemon.patch".

This will only take a line or two and shouldn't take more than a couple
of seconds to fix.  When the package in testing is in a sufficiently
good state then I'm confident that a backport of it will be accepted.

Regards,
Nicholas

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 857 B)