[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upload request: chasquid 1.11-1



On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 06:33:49PM +0000, Alberto Bertogli wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 11:28:56PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 02:48:23PM +0000, Alberto Bertogli wrote:
> > > I updated package chasquid to the latest upstream version, 1.11.
> > > 
> > > https://salsa.debian.org/go-team/packages/chasquid/
> > > 
> > > Can someone please review the changes and upload?
> > 
> > Although it seems like there's some change in upstream
> > systemd files. I haven't tested it (I don't use a self-hosted SMTP server) but I
> > did skim thorugh the diffs (which seems OK) and also assume as
> > upstream and package maintainer you tested it already.
> 
> Thanks for checking and flagging this!
> 
> Yes, the new upstream config has been tested against upstream's example
> config file.
> 
> 
> However, you made me realize I did not check updating the Debian package
> version, which has two issues:
> 
> 1) It is missing a key capability from upstream.
> 
> This is trivial to fix, and I will update the repo in salsa shortly after
> this email.

Please do this quickly, as we currently are in soft freeze.

> 2) How will a package update behave? If the previously installed systemd
> files will get overridden, then it can break working installations.
> 
> That's because chasquid's config file won't be necessarily updated to match
> the new systemd files.

Right. It'd show a prompt with whether or not the user/sysadmin wants to
override the file. If they skip the step and end up keeping their
version, it'd break the install.
I think the onus is still mostly on the user to properly see the diffs
and then take a decision.

What you probably can do is add a README.Debian to let the sysadmin know
about such changes, but, but ...

> So depending on the answer to #2 I will end up reversting these changes for
> Debian :(

That being said, such changes look in-appropriate at this stage in the
release, which is mostly the time only for targeted fixes. So at least
for this time frame, I would suggest reverting this change.

-- 
Best,
Nilesh

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: