[Pkg-zsh-devel] zsh-syntax-highlighting 0.6.0~rc1-1 uploaded to mentors.debian.net

Mon Jul 31 23:43:01 UTC 2017

Hi Daniel,

Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Good morning Axel,

Oh, ah, different time zones? 1:30 in the late night here. (Ok, can be
considered morning technically.)

> > > I've just uploaded a z-sy-h release candidate (for experimental) to mentors

Ah, missed that "experimental" in there.

> > Reason is that while you updated your key wrt. to the expiry date on
> > the usual public keyservers, the update seems not included in the
> > debian-keyring package (yet):
> 
> I updated my key a couple of weeks ago (extended expiry + new subkey)
> and uploaded it to keyring.d.o on the same day.

Ah, perfect! Hopefully that should suffice.

> > > It was a little trickier than I'd expected since I had to do a minor
> > > history surgery (details in the log messages),
> > 
> > Indeed sounds hairy. But looks well solved to me. I like the verbose
> > commit message with the ascii-art-ish history tree.
> 
> Verbose commit messages is a habit that was indoctrinated into me
> early on.

Good habit, that. :-)

> I didn't get any lintian warnings in my build.  My builds used to run
> lintian automatically; I'll restore that behaviour.

Maybe it's also because I run lintian even with --pedantic?

> > Some comments about the remaining lintian warnings:
> > 
> > I: zsh-syntax-highlighting source: debian-rules-parses-dpkg-parsechangelog (line 20)
> > I: zsh-syntax-highlighting source: debian-rules-parses-dpkg-parsechangelog (line 21)
> > 
> > Lintian is probably right, but that's nothing urgent at all IMHO.
> 
> Will fix.
> 
> For context, this only affects the "_origtar" target, which is run as
> part of updating the package to a new upstream release but is not run as
> part of generating a .dsc or a .deb.

Yep, noticed that. One of the reasons I don't consider this urgent at
all. :-)

> > P: zsh-syntax-highlighting source: debian-watch-may-check-gpg-signature
> > 
> > Mostly target towards upstream, but since you're also upstream...
> > I'd sponsor it without a fix for that, nevertheless. But you might
> > want to look into that at some point in the future. :-)
> 
> The upstream tag _is_ signed; the problem is just that debian/watch
> doesn't check the signature.  Added to my list.

Well, yes and no. debian/watch can't check signed tags. It can just
check detached signature files to tar balls, usually with the file
suffix ".sig" or ".asc".

I noticed the signed tags btw. due to having this in my global
.gitconfig:

[log]
        showSignature = true

:-)

> > Anyway, I hopefully managed to give you DM upload permissions for
> > zsh-syntax-highlighting. (Sorry, it took so long.)
> 
> Thanks.  I received an ftp-master confirmation, I think your command
> worked.

Yep, came here, too, but only after I had sent my mail to you.

> I'll fix the line length issue and try to upload rc1-2; if that
> fails, I'll circle back and ask for a sponsored upload.

*nod*

I will be on the road the next two days on my way to SHA, so you might
not get a quick response.

> > I also assume that you don't actually want 0.6.0~rc1-1 to be uploaded
> > but maybe 0.6.0-1 or so.
> 
> 0.6.0-rc1 is an upstream release candidate so I assume it would make
> sense to upload it to experimental.

Ah, right. Missed that, sorry.

> (0.6.0-GA is expected soon after zsh-5.4-GA; see upstream issue
> #412.)

And I just noticed that I haven't followed zsh-workers for quite a
while, too. Just pulled the upstream git repo and noticed the
5.3.1-test-2 tag.

I though won't have time to package 5.3.1-test-2 for experimental
before Thursday. (See above for the reasons.)

> Quick question: the process for uploading to experimental is just to put
> "experimental" in d/changelog before uploading, right?

Yes. And please check if the resulting .changes file contains a
"Distribution: experimental" header afterwards.

In the past there was a bug in IIRC sbuild that failed to do so and
some uploads targeted for experimental were uploaded to unstable
instead.

I don't use sbuild (but pbuilder/cowbuilder instead), so I don't know
if that issue is still present or under which circumstances it showed
up.

> I.e., is the dput(1) invocation is identical for unstable and
> experimental uploads? (I've checked maint-guide and
> developers-reference.)

Yes. And if you use dput-ng instead of plain dput (same command,
different package), it will also check for such glitches as the one
mentioned above. (Not sure if the original dput gained support for
such checks in the meanwhile, too.)

> Thanks for the detailed review.

Well, it didn't feel that detailed. But then again, the debdiff of
non-upstream changes wasn't that big either. :-)

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe at debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zsh-devel/attachments/20170801/79346d24/attachment-0001.sig>