Hi all,

I am preparing an upload to Sid, with the intent of getting it into
Lenny, for a package of mine (to solve bug #493061 for fakeroot-ng, if
it matters). While working on it, I found out that the package also has
a FTBS twice bug, which resulted from empty lines (with no leading tab
character) in debian/rules in the clean target. My question is - what to do?


Do I open a FTBS twice bug for the package and upload the fix? If so,
what priority should the new bug be? I saw FTBS bugs ranging from
"wishlist" to "important". I don't think it is an actual policy
violation (am I wrong? Can someone point me to the relevant section?)


Alternatively, as the delta has only white spaces between fixing the
tabs and not fixing it, I can just put the fix in and hope the release
managers (hi!) don't catch me when I ask them to allow the fix for
493061 through.


Then again, if the bug is not important enough, I can upload a fix that
only handles 493061, and doesn't touch the double FTBS bug at all.


What should I do?

Shachar


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Shachar Shemesh <shachar@debian.org> (14/08/2008):
> Hi all,

Hi,

> Do I open a FTBS twice bug for the package and upload the fix? If so,
> what priority should the new bug be? I saw FTBS bugs ranging from
> "wishlist" to "important". I don't think it is an actual policy
> violation (am I wrong? Can someone point me to the relevant section?)

http://release.debian.org/ under “Release goals� for lenny. Important
bug. Such a fix for such a bug shouldn't be hard to get accepted.

Mraw,
KiBi.

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 22:51, Shachar Shemesh <shachar@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am preparing an upload to Sid, with the intent of getting it into Lenny,
> for a package of mine (to solve bug #493061 for fakeroot-ng, if it matters).
> While working on it, I found out that the package also has a FTBS twice bug,
> which resulted from empty lines (with no leading tab character) in
> debian/rules in the clean target. My question is - what to do?
>
> Do I open a FTBS twice bug for the package and upload the fix? If so, what
> priority should the new bug be? I saw FTBS bugs ranging from "wishlist" to
> "important". I don't think it is an actual policy violation (am I wrong? Can
> someone point me to the relevant section?)
>
> Alternatively, as the delta has only white spaces between fixing the tabs
> and not fixing it, I can just put the fix in and hope the release managers
> (hi!) don't catch me when I ask them to allow the fix for 493061 through.
>
> Then again, if the bug is not important enough, I can upload a fix that only
> handles 493061, and doesn't touch the double FTBS bug at all.
>
> What should I do?
>
> Shachar
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>

It is actually a policy violation; Section 4.9 states:

clean

This must undo any effects that the build and binary targets may
have had, except that it should leave alone any output files created
in the parent directory by a run of a binary target.

--
/Carl Fürstenberg <azatoth@gmail.com>

>I am preparing an upload to Sid, with the intent of getting it into
Lenny, for a package of mine (to solve bug #493061 for
>fakeroot-ng, if it matters). While working on it, I found out that the
package also has a FTBS twice bug, which resulted
>from empty lines (with no leading tab character) in debian/rules in
the clean target. My question is - what to do?


I would suggest just fixing it and mentioning the fix in the changelog
as normal. This is a non-invasive change for a release goal issue so per
thier own freeze guidelines the release team should have no problem
accepting it.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org