Sync tpb 0.6.4-8 (universe) from Debian unstable (main)

i'm working at this package

Debdiff from debian to ubuntu attached

Your changelog entry needs some work:

 - (small nit) Our standard form for LP closers is "(LP: #12345)" not "(Closes LP: #12345)"
 - Don't bother putting in the changelog that you're changing Maintainer/Original-Mainatainer. There's no need to document something that we will always do

But most importantly,

 - Please *do* actually list the Ubuntu changes that you're keeping. Merging is an opportunity to reconsider the changes that have been introduced in the past and confirm that they're still needed. Without this, it's difficult to track the ongoing Ubuntu diff from Debian.

And, in fact, I see several places where we could shrink the Ubuntu diff, which makes packages more maintainable in the long run. For instance, there are some commented-out lines which were unnecessarily removed from debian/rules, and a blank line that was removed from debian/tpb.preinst. Also, there are a bunch of changes in the .po files that seem superfluous.

We also discussed adding a new translation on #ubuntu-motu. Since I don't speak Indonesian and can't review your work in that area, I'm uncomfortable sponsoring that work myself. Since, as far as I know, we can only use Rosetta for packages in main, I think the best thing to do would be to submit this translation file to Debian's Indonesian l10n list. If they approve of it, then I wouldn't have a problem including the translation until Debian is unfrozen.

I'm going to go ahead and unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors for now, but feel free to resubscribe them when you've updated the patch.

Please forgetting last debdiff. this is another one

hello Mahyuddin,

this looks a bit better than the former but still a few things that caught my eye are

1. its LP: #690927 instead of LP: #12345 in the LP closure directive

2. Please make the changelog more verbose i.e when you mention for example debian/init.d you should mention what is its relevant change affected in ubuntu so that its that much easier to track changes from previous merged version

3. Please update your Maintainer field to Ubuntu Developers <email address hidden> instead of the old address (Hint: you can use update-maintainer from ubuntu-dev-tools for the same)

4. Your changelog contains whitespaces such as

@@ -186,13 +269,13 @@ tpb (0.3.0-1) unstable; urgency=low
   * new upstream version

  -- Markus Braun <email address hidden> Tue, 22 Jul 2002 15:30:32 +0200
-
+
 tpb (0.2.2-1) unstable; urgency=low

   * new upstream version

  -- Markus Braun <email address hidden> Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:42:07 +0200
-
+
 tpb (0.2.1-1) unstable; urgency=low

   * Initial Release.

Please delete/correct them

5. As Evan said, I too see unnecessary deletion of commented out lines in debian/rules which can be avoided I think

Unsubscribing sponsors for now. Please resubscribe when the above points are taken care of

Regards

Heello coolbhavi

> 1. its LP: #690927 instead of LP: #12345 in the LP closure directive
>

hm.. i don't know exacly this bug #12345, but i think debian already fix it
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=569111

> 2. Please make the changelog more verbose i.e when you mention for
> example debian/init.d you should mention what is its relevant change
> affected in ubuntu so that its that much easier to track changes from
> previous merged version
>

Okay, its done

> 3. Please update your Maintainer field to  Ubuntu Developers <ubuntu-
> <email address hidden>> instead of the old address (Hint: you
> can use update-maintainer from ubuntu-dev-tools for the same)
>

Done
> 4. Your changelog contains whitespaces such as

Done

> 5. As Evan said, I too see unnecessary deletion of commented out lines
> in debian/rules which can be avoided I think
>
Done

thanks Bhavi!

--
Mahyuddin Susanto

[20:45] ebroder: udienz: It looks like there were several Ubuntu changes that you dropped without explanation
[20:45] ebroder: udienz: For instance, in 0.6.4-2.3ubuntu3, we added libxinerama-dev and dpatch to the build-dependencies in debian/control, and you dropped that change
[20:46] ebroder: udienz: You also dropped debian/patches/02_relibtoolize.dpatch
[20:47] ebroder: udienz: You also dropped the changes to debian/rules which caused the patches in debian/patches to be applied
[20:47] ebroder: udienz: You also dropped the "#DEBHELPER#" in debian/tpb.postrm and debian/tpb.preinst
[20:47] ebroder: udienz: And you dropped the environment variable change in debian/tpb.xsession
[20:458 ebroder: udienz: And you dropped a substantial change to src/cfg.c
[20:49] ebroder: udienz: Oh wait, forget that last bit. Looks like might it's been incorporated upstream?
[20:49] ebroder: udienz: But if that was the case, it should be documented in the changelog as well
[20:51] ebroder: ebroder: okay, i will try to fixing it

Unsubscribing sponsors again for the time being. Please resubscribe when ready.

Please forgot last diff, here is new diff.

@ ebroder
Done,
tpb (0.6.4-6ubuntu1) natty; urgency=low

  * Merge from debian unstable (LP: #690927)
  * Keep Ubuntu changes:
    - debian/patches/01_fix_xosd_aclocal.dpatch
    - debian/patches/02_relibtoolize.dpatch
  * debian/control
    - Adding libxinerama-dev and dpatch at Build-Depends
    - Adding makedev and misc depends at Depends
  * debian/rules
    - Starting tpb at startup (LP: #368546)
  * debian/init.d
    - Load tpb in the init script (LP: #146987)
    - Adding LSB informations (LP: #446703)
  * debian/tpb.postinst
    - Allow normal user to run tpb (LP: #158262)

Two patch under debian/patches is not used anymore (ebroder)
So this is new patch

Based on IRC discussion, we think this should possibly be a sync request, not a merge.

The only outstanding question is if we need an initscript to load the nvram module on the older IBM ThinkPads that tpb targets. If udev causes the nvram module to be loaded automatically (which I think it should), then we can drop our init script and rely on udev.

Unsubscribing sponsors pending further investigation.

Evan, i have asked to my friend about this packages. i agree if this packages has been sync and to merge

Hello Mahyuddin

you should *never* subscribe ubuntu archive admins on yourselves when you are filing a sync request it will be done by the sponsors (MOTU in case of universe,multiverse and core-dev in case of main or restricted) upon ACK of the sync request

cf: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SyncRequestProcess

Marking as incomplete due to pending further investigation as to detailed explanation of why the package can be synced

regards

PS: archive-admins please hold on and please wait before syncing this bug as of now

kind regards

I am doing some tests and then plan do sync the package instead.

I have tried getting the current and new version to work on my system, but it does not appear to work (see bug #915682).

I am waiting for feedback from the upstream author.

No news on this bug?

I am unassigning myself from the bug: it does not work on my system (just tried again with 13.10).

Since I cannot check if the init script is needed anymore I give up.

This package is high on the list at <http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/oldmerges/>, and the package itself is by all rights obsolete anyway now (there's no need to poll /dev/nvram for these keys, the kernel exposes the keys via the input subsystem). So I'm going to go ahead and sync this from Debian, dropping the Ubuntu delta.