Bug#954823: Sponsorship of hydrogen

[Nicholas D Steeves]

Hi Ross!

Ross Gammon <rossgammon at debian.org> writes:

> owner 954823 rossgammon at debian.org
> thanks
>
> Hi Nicholas,
>
> I am happy to take a look at hydrogen, and sponsor it. I have some spare
> time over the next few days.
>

Thank you, I really appreciate this! :-D  Here are some notes and
questions:

Will you be sponsoring from git or mentors?  How would you like me to
work during the WIP cycles of the review?  The git history will look a
bit silly and confusing with too many "refinalise for release to
unstable" commits ;-)

On #debian-multimedia, Sebastinas did a preliminary review, and two big
issues were:

1. override_dh_auto_build had a typo! "override_override_dh_auto_build"
   * <facepalm>  I've fixed this locally
2. I was missing an override_dh_auto_configure to make use of
   $DEB_CMAKE_EXTRA_FLAGS
   * I believe that is why the extra lib and dev packages became
     necessary.  Now that I know what was causing the problem I can
     restore something closer to the old packaging.
   * Changing this in the future will require another trip through NEW,
     so what do you think the correct split of the package is?
3. override_dh_auto_clean failed to run "dh_auto_clean".  Oops :-/

I've already make local fixes for these and other issues, but will delay
pushing until I receive your preference regarding the shared lib and dev
packages.  I'm of course open to fixing other issues and removing
anything you consider vestigial to the old cdbs packaging (I chose the
more labour-intensive approach rather than clean packaging)!

> Have you reopened any bugs that were closed when the package was removed?
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#reintroducing-packages
>

I have not yet reopened any bugs.  The list of -rm bugs is:
  945042 642014 629105 870395 794042 586087 874907 347279 945042

There seem to be differences in perspective about when/if these bugs
should be reopened.  My preference is to maintain a strong link between
the changelog and BTS, for future reference, and for future
maintainers.  Given "changelog closes bugs in wrong way", I feel like
reopening the bugs that will be closed by the yet-to-be-uploaded
changelog entry is the correct approach, because it creates a strong
link between the changelog and BTS.

Best,
Nicholas
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20201229/9088da34/attachment.sig>