Bug#991761: rust-swc-core: ecma crates ready to enable (ITP #991761)

Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:01:52 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.wnpp
Message-ID	<178475771230.632787.18399863000009968513__49438.1885205925$1784757933$gmane$org@cairon.jones.dk>

Quoting Juan M. Méndez Rey (2026-07-22 08:38:07)
> Targeting experimental in changelog, is this what you meant?

No, what I meant was not about your proposed patches to the swc package
but about your newly introduced precomputed-map package:

When you initially introduce a new package to Debian, you must build
with binary packages includd, but such releae is not permitted to
transition to testing. It is problematic to have packages in unstable
that are not intended for migration to testing, and it is therefore a
recommended pattern to release such known-unmigratable package to
experimental, and then re-release to unstable (as a build without
binaries) when the package is accepted into Debian.

> Branch pushed to: https://salsa.debian.org/mendezr/rust-swc-core/-/tree/debian/latest

Thanks.

Please do not include changes to changelog in commits that changes
code - changelog it updated separately from codechanges, to make it
easier to later revert or cherry-pick across branches (e.g. reuse a
bugfix targeted unstable in a change to stable or oldstable).

your addition of patch 2008 seems a combination of multiple somewhat
independent things:

* changes arguably better suited as extensions to patch 2005
  * setting test = false seems too invasive - is that really necessary?
* tty-emitter feature workaround
* bugfix for missing ctxt field seemingly relevant to push upstream

Your git commit "add patch 2007_narrow_icu_exclude" seems better suited
as extension to patch 2003_icu_properties, and does multiple things
beyond adding that patch:

* edits changelog (please omit that)
* embedding crates
* exclusion and dropping embedding of other crates
* petgraph fix seemingly belonging to another patch

Your git commit "add patch 2006_avoid_autodiscovery" seems better
suited as extensions to patches 2003_*.

Ideally, patches should be possible to drop independently, or at least
collateral changes should be sensible to the patch itself, not be
"magically" triggered by changes in other patches.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)