PureOS-project September 2021

pureos-project@lists.puri.sm

5 participants
3 discussions

Re: [PureOS] Droping the Uploader field in d/control within PureOS?
by Carsten Schoenert 27 Sep '21

27 Sep '21

Hi Guido, Am 25.09.21 um 12:09 schrieb Guido Günther: >> What is the rationale behind that note? > > This documents current practice (I documented what I found when looking > into getting packages into PureOS proper). > > If you think it's a bad idea just > > - make a proposal (e.g. drop, change to XSBC-*) on tracker.pureos.net. > - if there's a discussion let's find consensus > - if there's no discussion even better (i'd wait for >2w for feedback) > - adjust the documentation > - close the issue thanks, so there is no hard reasoning for the current state. I'll follow your suggestion within the next days, the mentioned solution is btw. the best way to get this done I think. -- Regards Carsten Schoenert

4 7

Droping the Uploader field in d/control within PureOS?
by Carsten Schoenert 24 Sep '21

24 Sep '21

Hi, as I'm still quite new with contributing to PureOS I faced a question yesterday while working on T1076 and T1079. While preparing seahorse for byzantium lintian was complaining about 'invalid-field-for-derivative' for the still existing Uploaders field. https://lintian.debian.org/tags/invalid-field-for-derivative Looking at https://tracker.pureos.net/w/development/packaging_overview/ there is mentioned "Note that the Uploaders: field remains untouched." What is the rationale behind that note? Personally I believe that Lintian is of course right here, I myself e.g have users that email me from time to time about some problems in KiCad e.g. which aren't rooted in Debian as they use the PPA for Ubuntu, but got my email address from the package data. I quite almost need to point the users to the PPA owner. It's not that difficult but sometimes annoying me. So why should a user of PureOS get in contact with the uploaders of an package in Debian if he correctly should contact the packagers for PureOS? Why is this error message in lintian currently ignored for PureOS? -- Regards Carsten Schoenert

2 1

Lollypop in byzantium has a bug that should be fixed
by Andreas Ronnquist 23 Sep '21

23 Sep '21

Bullseye is released, and byzantium seems to get closer and closer to being released - congratulations! In the Lollypop package there's a bug in the package in byzantium/bullseye which affects the adaptive mode of the application (which is bad for the phone interface of course). Upstream bug #2778 [1] (fixed in 1.4.19-2 in debian, in upstream in 1.4.20, while 1.4.14-1 is in byzantium/bullseye). It's two commits upstream [2][3] merged to one patch in the debian fix [4]. If I can, I would like to fix this in byzantium - what's the preferred way to do this? Cherry-picking the fix and adding to 1.4.14-1, or simply backporting the latest (or maybe just the first one with the fix) to byzantium? I would gladly provide an updated package. regards -- Andreas Rönnquist mailinglists(a)gusnan.se andreas(a)ronnquist.net [Please don't CC me, if I mail to a mailinglist, I am subscribed to it.] 1: https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/lollypop/-/issues/2778 2: https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/lollypop/-/commit/5e0cbc686e3754a5a3c6e05315… 3: https://gitlab.gnome.org/World/lollypop/-/commit/8cd6117a597be5ee276dca7b99… 4: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/lollypop/-/commit/bdad22d541d…

3 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

PureOS-project September 2021