newer versions of debian will not build a koha-common package, as the Standards-Version value is too low this patch fixes this problem
Created attachment 146941 [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
Created attachment 148906 [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.
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.
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. :-)
(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?
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 ?
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?
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?
(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...