[Pkg-netatalk-devel] Time for a build?

[Brian Campbell]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
> Quoting Brian Campbell (2014-03-17 00:33:12)
>> Hi, Jonas! Since I haven't heard from you, and need to get working on
>> Netatalk 3 packaging, I've merged the backports branch into master and
>> pushed that.
>
> I have not yet looked at that, but it sounds wrong to merge into same
> branch releases belonging to separate suites.

Sorry, I think I might not have been clear. The backports branch had
just had a few patches taken from Netatalk Git on the 2.2 branch after
the 2.2.5 release that haven't yet been released as 2.2.6. A few of
them fix serious bugs that I've encountered. This isn't anything from
a separate suite, just a few more fixes on top of 2.2.5.

>> I've also pushed an "nmu" branch which updates the changelog for an
>> NMU build, so I could upload my current build to mentors.debian.net
>> (http://mentors.debian.net/package/netatalk). If you don't have the
>> time to review my changes and upload it, I can see if I can find
>> another sponsor for the package on debian-mentors.
>
> This is a team.
>
> Sponsoring is for packages maintained solely by a non-DD.  Does not
> apply here.
>
> NMUs are for package updates done by others than the maintainer(s).
> Does not apply here.

OK, my apologies. I know you're pretty busy, so I thought that maybe
we could spread the burden around a little. AFAIK, you're the only DD
on pkg-netatalk-devel, so you're the only person who can actually
upload a package. I didn't know that a team managed package couldn't
be sponsored.

Would you have time to review the most recent changes and do an upload
if they look OK to you? My QA team and I have been using a build based
on the latest changes for the past month or so and it seems to be
pretty stable to us so far. If there's anything you object to,
however, feel free to revert it and we can just maintain the patches
on top of the official packaging.

>
>> I'm going to start working on packaging Netatalk 3.1.1, probably using
>> adiknoth's existing Netatalk 3 packaging work as a base. I'll name it
>> netatalk3 so that it can coexist in the repository with netatalk 2 for
>> Jessie, unless you have any objection.
>
> Haven't looked closely at it yet, so don't know if I like that plan.
>
> Sorry for my slow response.

No problem, I know that you're busy, I've been pretty busy myself recently.

I need to package 3.1.1 for my job, so I'm going to have to start
doing that soon. I'd prefer to do so in a way that can be re-used by
Debian, so we don't have to duplicate work, though if necessary, I can
just do my own packaging for our own release and we can worry about
official Debian packaging separately.

Do you have any time to talk over Netatalk packaging over the next
couple of days, and what our next step are? I'm available via IRC or
Jabber, or we could just do it over email. I'd really like to do this
correctly, but as you can see, I need a little guidance since I'm new
to the whole Debian packaging and release process. Or would you prefer
if I just create a branch for doing Netatalk 3 packaging, and you can
just review that and let me know what needs to change?

Since I'm doing this for my job, I have some time to put into it, and
I have QA resources (both people and a lab full of 20 or so clients
that we use for load-testing the server), so it would be nice if we
could take advantage of that while we have the ability to.

-- Brian