Bug 33009 - bump Standards-Version to 4.6.2
Summary: bump Standards-Version to 4.6.2
Status: Failed QA
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Packaging (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low normal (vote)
Assignee: Mason James
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2023-02-20 03:42 UTC by Mason James
Modified: 2023-05-14 23:35 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: Trivial patch
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
Bug 33009: bump Standards-Version to 4.6.2 (1.36 KB, patch)
2023-02-20 03:45 UTC, Mason James
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 33009: bump Standards-Version to 4.6.2 (1.48 KB, patch)
2023-03-29 11:54 UTC, Magnus Enger
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 33009: bump Standards-Version to 4.6.2 (1.48 KB, patch)
2023-03-29 11:55 UTC, Magnus Enger
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mason James 2023-02-20 03:42:43 UTC
newer versions of debian will not build a koha-common package, as the Standards-Version value is too low

this patch fixes this problem
Comment 1 Mason James 2023-02-20 03:45:48 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 2 Magnus Enger 2023-03-29 11:54:37 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 3 Magnus Enger 2023-03-29 11:55:03 UTC
Created attachment 148907 [details] [review]
Bug 33009: bump Standards-Version to 4.6.2

to test:
 - build package on debian-unstable, note failure
 - apply patch
 - build package on debian-unstable, note success

Signed-off-by: Magnus Enger <magnus@libriotech.no>
I have not built packages, but I trust Mason to do the right thing.
Comment 4 Magnus Enger 2023-03-29 11:56:26 UTC
Not really tested this, but I trust Mason to do the right thing and fix if it was wrong. Please reset to NSO if you disagree. :-)
Comment 5 Marcel de Rooy 2023-04-14 06:13:48 UTC
(In reply to Magnus Enger from comment #4)
> Not really tested this, but I trust Mason to do the right thing and fix if
> it was wrong. Please reset to NSO if you disagree. :-)

I understand. But a signoff or QA should be passed on something, right?
Comment 6 Marcel de Rooy 2023-04-14 06:16:50 UTC
I am reading:
When updating existing packaging, the Standards-Version must not be updated except after reviewing the changes between the old and the new versions of the standards and updating your package if necessary (the Upgrading checklist can help with this task).

Mason, how do/did we implement that review ?
Comment 7 Victor Grousset/tuxayo 2023-05-12 00:09:12 UTC
If I understand correctly this is just bumping the version while the package isn't in accordance to the standards. We might be okay with this if the changes needed are tedious without much value. Since it's not about having an official Koha package in Debian's repo.
But what would be the needed changes? To actually choose what to pick or not. To not miss on something important that might cause issues in the future. I never did Debian packaging so maybe it's totally irrelevant, you tell us Mason.
By any chance, does a compliance tool exists so the assessment itself isn't a big task?
Comment 8 Katrin Fischer 2023-05-14 11:08:49 UTC
If I remember correctly one of the things that keeps us out of the Debian repository is our messy copyright statements. It didn't look like an easy fix at all. I'd go with trusting Mason here. 

Mason, could you give a quick feedback to the questions maybe?
Comment 9 David Cook 2023-05-14 23:35:38 UTC
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #6)
> I am reading:
> When updating existing packaging, the Standards-Version must not be updated
> except after reviewing the changes between the old and the new versions of
> the standards and updating your package if necessary (the Upgrading
> checklist can help with this task).
> 
> Mason, how do/did we implement that review ?

I think this is the checklist to which Marcel was referring: 

https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/upgrading-checklist.txt

There's about 4,884 words spanning 12 years in-between 3.8.4 and 4.6.2 so I don't think anyone's fully reviewed it.

Perhaps we don't need to update all the way to 4.6.2 though. Maybe it's worth finding a middle ground and doing a review between 3.8.4 and there. 

I spent a little bit of time checking backwards from 3.8.4 and we looked compliant before it, although it's possible that we might not be 100% compliant going back to the very beginning...