[Pkg-privacy-maintainers] torbirdy 0.1.4

[u]

Hi,

intrigeri:
> I had a look, and I've pushed a few small improvements to the
> debian/sid branch.

<33333

> May you please push your "upstream" branch? It seems outdated in
> Vcs-Git.

Sorry about that. I hope it's better now?

> May you please improve a bit the "Patch Torbirdy's default locale."
> entry in debian/changelog? It doesn't make it clear what problem is
> solved, nor how.

Ok, I thought that the header in the patch would be sufficient. Added
some more text to the changelog.

> Other than that, it looks good, thanks! Once these small issues are
> fixed I'm happy to test and upload, but still, please read on :)

more <333!

> There were 4 different packaging methods documented in d/README.source
> already, and now we have 5. Wow. Of course it's not your (U's) duty to
> fix that situation. Still, note that commit daf8289 will break those,
> among the documented workflows, that use upstream's Git tag instead of
> their XPI; this commit is essentially reverting Lunar's e14bdc7, that
> I think he did so that he could use his preferred workflow. So the
> revert "war" has already started, and next time someone wants to use
> a Git-tag-without-XPI workflow, they'll need to revert the revert.
> That's not a blocker for this upload, but I suggest you folks discuss
> this topic and find out a way that works for everybody who's working
> on this package :)

Ahaha. Thanks for pointing this out.

Lunar, I'd like your advice on this issue then. It seemed to me that
your workflow has been described by Jake in this readme file and I
found it hard to follow. That's why I used my own recipe (which would be
compatible with `uscan`).

But let's discuss that here? I'm open to switch to any clear workflow as
long as it's properly documented :p

> Other than that, here are some comments on the packaging (nothing in
> there is news ⇒ no regression ⇒ not blockers):
> 
> * Years are outdated in debian/copyright. That's something one needs
>   to check every time we import a new upstream release. Not a blocker
>   but I would appreciate if it was fixed in this upload.

I tried my best to update this from the upstream source.

> * I find it a bit sad to not ship the upstream ChangeLog, but that's
>   not news and I don't care that much.

If that's not a blocker, I'd like to leave it as is.

> * There's some noise in both Debian patches' header.

Ok, I was not aware. I adopted the header style from the patches in the
Vidalia package. I hope that one was not outdated or anything :))

Cheers!
And thaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanks :)
U.