Dear mentors,

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "rush":

  * Package name    : rush
    Version         : 2.2+dfsg-1.0
    Upstream Author : Sergey Poznyakoff <gray@gnu.org.ua>
  * URL             : http://puszcza.gnu.org.ua/software/rush/
  * License         : custom-gettext, custom-X, GPL-3+, GPL-2+
  * Vcs             : https://salsa.debian.org/vimerbf-guest/rush
    Section         : shells

The source builds the following binary packages:

   rush - restricted user shell

To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/rush/

Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command:

   dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rush/rush_2.2+dfsg-1.0.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

  rush (2.2+dfsg-1.0) unstable; urgency=medium
  .
    * Non-maintainer upload.
    * New upstream release (Closes: #1001091)
    * fix rush FTCBFS (Closes: #929160)
    * Update Standards-Version to 4.6.1
    * drop debian/patches/intprops.patch
    * drop debian/patches/manpages.diff
    * Add vcs-* in d/control
    * introducing the git gbp packaging
----------------------
I have to explains more here[0]:
TL;DR. The rush package need to be updated that is reported by user. But
the maintainer of the package does not want to contineue maintain it .
But there is some procedural process to unclear. I think the NMU-upload is simple
to deal with it. this is my the first to NMU upload.

PS: Personlly I like to upload it as NMU. But if there is some tortuous
to do that, maintaining it by myself is ok also.


[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2022/03/msg00050.html
Regards,
-- 
   Bo YU

I would like to encourage you to step in as a maintainer and ITA #1012205.
If you want to follow the NMU path, you have to change the Debian revision to -0.1.

There is no need to repack the doc directory anymore since 1.9 changed the license.
I have removed the repacking stuff in
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rush/-/commit/ef5fa020502263c594b83827ed3302200e95650d

I have left the d/copyright addition of GFDL for you.

What happened to format_security.diff?
Why did you remove it? It should still be valid but maybe needs a rebase.

You are not using gbp as intended. The upstream and debian/* files are commited together in one commit.
I have created https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rush. Please fork it and apply your upstream and
debian changes separately. After cloning you should begin with the command
gbp import-orig --uscan --debian-branch=debian/main --upstream-branch=upstream/latest

Then add your debian/* changes in debian/main but make sure to have the Vcs-* fields pointing to
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rush (not your fork). It would be nice to split the logical steps
in single commits but it is not required.

I would discourage the gbp.conf file and also the pristine-tar but I will leave that to your decision.
If you want to use pristine-tar make sure you add all the old commits before importing v2.2.

 >     * Add myself as maintainer (Closes: 1012205)

Thanks for this decision. Please add the missing hash #.

Ok. I got huzz hint when applying the patch and i forget to record it
here.

Thank you. This is very help for me to do such. I am trying to find my
sold packaging way. yeah, although I call it as gbp here, but some
process do not follow the gbp way.

This is where I like Debian :)

IIRC, There is no pristine-tar branch in go team packaing also.
Ok, It is become more complex if keep pristine-tar branch maybe.

Oh, sorry, will do;)

Thank you again for help me to maintain rush package.

Bo

Ok. I got huzz hint when applying the patch and i forget to record it
here.

Thank you. This is very help for me to do such. I am trying to find my
sold packaging way. yeah, although I call it as gbp here, but some
process do not follow the gbp way.

This is where I like Debian :)

IIRC, There is no pristine-tar branch in go team packaing also.
Ok, It is become more complex if keep pristine-tar branch maybe.

Oh, sorry, will do;)

Thank you again for help me to maintain rush package.

Bo

not an option. You have to look at the patch, understand it and check if the codebase has changed so
that it is not needed anymore FUNCTIONALLY. That is not the case for any of the dropped patches as
far as I can see, so please rebase them. You can use gbp pq or quilt for that.

I have had a look at your latest mentors upload and imported the changes that are useful into git.

Hi,
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012483
But it was closed by bartm@debian.org.

Now the rush package on mentors is latest. Could you have a look?


To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/rush/

Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command:

   dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rush/rush_2.2+dfsg-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

  rush (2.2+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium
  .
    * New upstream release (Closes: #1001091)
    * Fix rush FTCBFS (Closes: #929160)
    * Update Standards-Version to 4.6.1
    * drop debian/patches/intprops.patch
    * drop debian/patches/format_security.diff
    * refactor manpages patch
    * add debhelper-compat (= 13)
    * add Vcs-* in d/control
    * add build-depens: texinfo
    * Remove build-deps dh-autoreconf
    * Add myself as maintainer (Closes: #1012205)
    * tiny d/watch file


Thank you,

Bo

Hi,
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1012483
But it was closed by bartm@debian.org.

Now the rush package on mentors is latest. Could you have a look?


To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/rush/

Alternatively, you can download the package with 'dget' using this command:

   dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/rush/rush_2.2+dfsg-1.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

  rush (2.2+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium
  .
    * New upstream release (Closes: #1001091)
    * Fix rush FTCBFS (Closes: #929160)
    * Update Standards-Version to 4.6.1
    * drop debian/patches/intprops.patch
    * drop debian/patches/format_security.diff
    * refactor manpages patch
    * add debhelper-compat (= 13)
    * add Vcs-* in d/control
    * add build-depens: texinfo
    * Remove build-deps dh-autoreconf
    * Add myself as maintainer (Closes: #1012205)
    * tiny d/watch file


Thank you,

Bo

Am 17.06.22 um 09:20 schrieb Bo YU:

Please do not expect a possible sponsor to look at your changes when you have not addressed his previous comments.
You have not included an explanation about the patches.

Also, the version number does not take a +dfsg without repacking.

When you have provided a version that explains the patch removal or has rebased them on the new version please untag
moreinfo from this bug.

Hi,

I know the problem is where:
I do not understand why the patch from bunk[0] fix the license part in
intprops.h? And the code is applied into upstream[1]. Now I think the
different is

```
/* -*- buffer-read-only: t -*- vi: set ro: */
/* DO NOT EDIT! GENERATED AUTOMATICALLY! */
/* intprops.h -- properties of integer types

    Copyright (C) 2001-2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
...
by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.
...

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
```
So the patch will still remained?

The patch is applied into upstream[2]. So the patch can be dropped?

This is a quesion that confuses me, because i have lintian info also.
how to understand with "repacking" here? I want to adopt the package
with following the original debian version name rule(2.2+dfsg-1).
it seems that i do not got it here:)

Ok, like `tags 1012200 - moreinfo`?

thank you, Bastian

Bo

[0]: https://salsa.debian.org/vimerbf-guest/rush/-/blob/debian/1.8+dfsg-1.1/debian/patches/intprops.patch
[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/vimerbf-guest/rush/-/blob/upstream/2.2/gnu/intprops.h
[3]: https://salsa.debian.org/vimerbf-guest/rush/-/blob/upstream/2.2/lib/wordsplit/wordsplit.c#L2889

Am 17.06.22 um 10:30 schrieb Bo YU:

See, this explanation is what I wanted to see. Yes, please drop them.
It is enough just to include "(applied upstream)" in the two changelog entries.

I do not know why the license change was included but we do not need to know when we do not keep the patch.

The +dfsg suffix means that files are removed from upstream source to comply with the DFSG.
As that is no longer necessary and we can include the full source, the suffix has to be dropped.

Yes.

The rush package has a new upload:

rush (2.2-1) unstable; urgency=medium
  .
    * New upstream release (Closes: #1001091)
    * Fix rush FTCBFS (Closes: #929160)
    * Update Standards-Version to 4.6.1
    * Drop debian/patches/intprops.patch(applied upstream)
    * Drop debian/patches/format_security.diff(applied upstream)
    * Refactor manpages patch
    * Add debhelper-compat (= 13)
    * Add Vcs-* in d/control
    * Add Build-Depends: texinfo
    * Remove Build-Depends: dh-autoreconf
    * Add myself as maintainer (Closes: #1012205)
    * Tiny d/watch file
    * Remove dfsg in version string

If has any issue please let me know:)

Bo

Thanks for adopting the package.

Please delete your fork and local copy of the repo and continue work in https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rush.
Please use `gbp import-orig --uscan` to import new upstream versions so that they appear as commits on the
upstream/latest branch. You did not do that in your fork.

Thanks for helping me to work on it.

Right. I checked the upstream/latest branch after your reminder.
It does exist in my local repo and I forget to push it into salsa repo
forked.

Will do next time.

Thank you again, Bastian.

Bo