Update to most recent upstream version 1.10.8

Please be aware of flash issues with the change from gtk2 to gtk3 in
liferea 1.10. I don't know (I haven't tried yet to find out) how this
impacts liferea in Ubuntu but better check it:

http://lzone.de/How%20to%20Get%20Flash%20Working%20with%20WebkitGTK3?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LifereaBlog+%28Liferea+Blog%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

1.10.4 fixes a very annoying bug where double-clicking on an item doesn't open it in the default browser but in Liefrea's own window (even if opening in Liferea is explicitely disabled in the preferences). See http://sourceforge.net/p/liferea/bugs/1089/.

This merge will also fix some ubuntu bugs, like the bug #1299649.

Here there is a debdiff from the current debian package.

On 29-04-14 16:36, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Here there is a debdiff from the current debian package.
>
> ** Patch added: "debdiff from debian/1.10.8-1"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/liferea/+bug/1208776/+attachment/4100416/+files/1.10.8-1_1.10.8-1u1.debdiff

It would be great if somebody could actually go through the effort of
creating a debdiff that we could integrate into the Debian packaging so
that we don't need this dance in the future. This should be doable
cleanly and if somebody does the work and it seems sane, I will apply it
in Debian.

I think libav is (at least was) an example package where Debian and
Ubuntu work was put into the same source package. I remember I did it
also once in Winff (but that is not needed anymore).

Paul

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Paul Gevers <email address hidden> wrote:
> It would be great if somebody could actually go through the effort of
> creating a debdiff that we could integrate into the Debian packaging so
> that we don't need this dance in the future. This should be doable
> cleanly and if somebody does the work and it seems sane, I will apply it
> in Debian.

I would be very happy to forward patches to Debian (in fact, is the
part I enjoy the most), but I don't think it's applicable here.
these are the major changes we done:
1) change the default feed list, removing debian's and adding ubuntu's feeds
2) using libunity to show unread items, etc, see bug #732848
3) using libmessaging-menu, in a way that brakes libnotify

while maybe you can accept 1) (without replacing), the other two
points are not applicable to debian (at least because there are not
libunity-dev and libmessaging-menu-dev).

I want to assure you I'm doing my best to reduce the delta between
Debian and Ubuntu forwarding patches from the letter to the former.
Sadly, I don't think it's possible here...

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 4096R/B9444540 http://goo.gl/I8TMB
more about me: http://mapreri.org
Launchpad User: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri
Ubuntu Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MattiaRizzolo

The attachment "debdiff from debian/1.10.8-1" seems to be a debdiff. The ubuntu-sponsors team has been subscribed to the bug report so that they can review and hopefully sponsor the debdiff. If the attachment isn't a patch, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are member of the ~ubuntu-sponsors, unsubscribe the team.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by ~brian-murray, for any issue please contact him.]

On 29-04-14 18:13, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Paul Gevers <email address hidden> wrote:
>> It would be great if somebody could actually go through the effort of
>> creating a debdiff that we could integrate into the Debian packaging so
>> that we don't need this dance in the future. This should be doable
>> cleanly and if somebody does the work and it seems sane, I will apply it
>> in Debian.
>
> I would be very happy to forward patches to Debian (in fact, is the
> part I enjoy the most), but I don't think it's applicable here.
> these are the major changes we done:
> 1) change the default feed list, removing debian's and adding ubuntu's feeds
> 2) using libunity to show unread items, etc, see bug #732848
> 3) using libmessaging-menu, in a way that brakes libnotify
>
> while maybe you can accept 1) (without replacing), the other two
> points are not applicable to debian (at least because there are not
> libunity-dev and libmessaging-menu-dev).
>
> I want to assure you I'm doing my best to reduce the delta between
> Debian and Ubuntu forwarding patches from the letter to the former.
> Sadly, I don't think it's possible here...

What I meant is that there are ways to make changes such that they only
apply when build by Ubuntu. In that way, the necessary code is in the
Debian package while not APPLIED in Debian. I remember having used this
kind of logic at least in debian/rules file, although you would need to
search around how to do this nicely for patches, as I don't recall how
this was done.

Paul

Hello,

Paul Gevers [2014-04-29 16:30 -0000]:
> I remember having used this kind of logic at least in debian/rules
> file,

Right, you can do that with something like

……………………if dpkg-vendor --is ubuntu; then \
…………………… [...]
……………………fi

> although you would need to > search around how to do this nicely for patches,
as I don't recall how > this was done.

One can have a debian/patches/ubuntu.series and
debian/patches/debian.series for that purpose.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> What I meant is that there are ways to make changes such that they only
> apply when build by Ubuntu. In that way, the necessary code is in the
> Debian package while not APPLIED in Debian. I remember having used this
> kind of logic at least in debian/rules file, although you would need to
> search around how to do this nicely for patches, as I don't recall how
> this was done.

This is possible, I can check if I find something googling a bit.
Anyway, I don't see a sane way to change the build-dep... Let me think
a bit, but I can't assure anything.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 4096R/B9444540 http://goo.gl/I8TMB
more about me: http://mapreri.org
Launchpad User: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri
Ubuntu Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MattiaRizzolo

On Apr 29, 2014 6:50 PM, "Martin Pitt" <email address hidden> wrote:
> Right, you can do that with something like
>
> ……………………if dpkg-vendor --is ubuntu; then \
> …………………… [...]
> ……………………fi
>
> One can have a debian/patches/ubuntu.series and
> debian/patches/debian.series for that purpose.

What's about the different build-deps?

If this can be done I'll happily cook up a package for Debian with these
funny stuffs.

Mattia Rizzolo [2014-04-29 17:02 -0000]:
> What's about the different build-deps?

That's not generally possible, as you can't generate build-deps
dynamically. In some cases one can use alternatives if a package is
only present in D or U, and fall back on the other one. Otherwise
there needs to be a delta.

On 29-04-14 20:39, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Mattia Rizzolo [2014-04-29 17:02 -0000]:
>> What's about the different build-deps?
>
> That's not generally possible, as you can't generate build-deps
> dynamically. In some cases one can use alternatives if a package is
> only present in D or U, and fall back on the other one. Otherwise
> there needs to be a delta.

Ok. But having only a U/D delta in d/control is already a lot nicer than
the current situation, AFAIAC. So let's go for that (if somebody does
the work ;) )

Paul

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Ok. But having only a U/D delta in d/control is already a lot nicer than
> the current situation, AFAIAC. So let's go for that (if somebody does
> the work ;) )

I can do it, in fact doing such work in debian would be easier
Anyway, I don't like too much putting ubuntu-specific diffs in a
debian package that can't be built without further edits.

Do you want me submit a bug in the bts with the debdiff attached once
it's ready? or, even better for me, what's about a branch in the git
repo? (I want to test if it works correctly, never used
d/p/ubuntu.series and such)

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 4096R/B9444540 http://goo.gl/I8TMB
more about me: http://mapreri.org
Launchpad User: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri
Ubuntu Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MattiaRizzolo

On 29-04-14 21:13, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Anyway, I don't like too much putting ubuntu-specific diffs in a
> debian package that can't be built without further edits.

I don't know if I understand what you mean here. Of course, if a patch
is unmaintainable in Debian, it also doesn't make much sense to take it
into the Debian package.

> Do you want me submit a bug in the bts with the debdiff attached once
> it's ready?

That would be fine.

> or, even better for me, what's about a branch in the git repo?

I guess you mean a pull request from somewhere? That could work very
well I suppose. If you mean to get commit access to our repository, then
I am reluctant to grant you that right now as I haven't worked with you
before.

Paul

On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 29-04-14 21:13, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>> Anyway, I don't like too much putting ubuntu-specific diffs in a
>> debian package that can't be built without further edits.
>
> I don't know if I understand what you mean here. Of course, if a patch
> is unmaintainable in Debian, it also doesn't make much sense to take it
> into the Debian package.

maybe we are running too fast.
You asked to integrate the ubuntu patch in the debian package. Good
point, since reducing the delta between debian and ubuntu is always
good.
I pointed out that the actual differences are ubuntu-specific (ubuntu
feeds and unity integration) and from my POV doesn't sound right
integrating them in the debian package, even if they are triggered and
applied only on ubuntu builds.

I'd like to hear a comment from another developer.

>> or, even better for me, what's about a branch in the git repo?
> If you mean to get commit access to our repository, then
> I am reluctant to grant you that right now as I haven't worked with you
> before.

I have already access to collab-maint, but I won't never push to a
repository for which the maintainer didn't give me the green light.

--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 4096R/B9444540 http://goo.gl/I8TMB
more about me: http://mapreri.org
Launchpad User: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri
Ubuntu Wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MattiaRizzolo

(forgot that the standard work-flow require these changes...)

Looks good, thanks! Uploaded. And I agree that pretty much all the changes are rather Ubuntu specific, so I don't think we can get much of them to Debian without inflicting unnecessary extra maintenance pain on Debian.

This bug was fixed in the package liferea - 1.10.8-1ubuntu1

---------------
liferea (1.10.8-1ubuntu1) utopic; urgency=low

  * Merge from Debian unstable (LP: #1208776). Remaining changes:
    + debian/patches/ubuntu-example-feeds.patch.
    + debian/patches/port-to-messaging-menu.patch.
    + debian/patches/libunity.patch: refreshed.
    + debian/control: build-depends on libmessaging-menu-dev libunity-dev.
    + debian/rules: enable messaging-menu.
  * Upstream changes:
    + Fix a issue in opening link in a external browser (LP: #1299649)

liferea (1.10.8-1) unstable; urgency=low

  [ David Michael Smith ]
  * New upstream release [March 2014] (Closes: #742009)
  * Fix a problem related to opening items in an external browser.
    (Closes: #725281)
  * Update watch file, upstream moved from SF to github.
  * debian/rules: Add intltoolize to override_dh_autoreconf to work around
    missing Makefile. See: http://sourceforge.net/p/liferea/bugs/1143/
  * Adopt package (Closes: #738099)

  [ Paul Gevers ]
  * Remove Dmitry Smirnov from uploaders (his own request)
  * Add myself as uploader
 -- Mattia Rizzolo <email address hidden> Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:12:32 +0200