RFH: python-coherence

[Charlie Smotherman]

On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 09:24 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:53:52 +0000 Max Bowsher <maxb at f2s.com> wrote:
> >Charlie Smotherman wrote:
> >> MOTU, 
> >> 
> >> I have a little problem that I need some help with.  I just update the
> >> python-coherence package Bug #338408.  As you can tell from the bug I
> >> collaborated with the Debian Maintainer to update the package in Debian
> >> first.  During this collaboration I used a bzr branch to keep track of
> >> what changes I made to the package and referred upstream to it along
> >> with attaching a debdiff to the bug for upstream and for the
> >> MOTU-release team.  
> >> 
> >> It has come to my attention the the package is now broken and several
> >> bugs have been filed against it.  This is the culprit
> >> 
> >> Setting up python-coherence (0.6.2-1) ...
> >> file does not exist:
> >>  /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/coherence/web/static/MochiKit.js
> >> 
> >> During the package update Lintian complained of MochiKit.js as being a
> >> violation of policy 4.13 so I took steps to correct this.  As part of
> >> correcting this problem I add debian/links to link to the package
> >> libjs-mochikit.  If you look at the attached branch and the attached
> >> debdiff on Bug #338408 you will notice that debian/links reads 
> >> 
> >> /usr/share/javascript/mochikit/MochiKit.js 
> /usr/share/pyshared/coherence/web/static/MochiKit.js
> >> 
> >> The branch is what I used to build and test with, upstream was also
> >> using the branch to help and advise me.  Once upstream (debian
> >> maintainer) was satisfied, he told me that he would upload the branch.  
> >> 
> >> Now if you download the debian package and take a look at the diff.gz
> >> debian/links now reads:
> >> 
> >> /usr/share/javascript/mochikit/mochikit.js 
> /usr/share/coherence/coherence/web/static/MochiKit.js
> >> 
> >> As you can tell this is *not* what I sent upstream to the debian
> >> developer.  
> >> 
> >> My question is what would be the best course of action to correct this
> >> now broken package.
> >
> >I don't understand, what's the problem with simply treating it the same
> >as any other bug in a Debian package, and reporting it to their BTS /
> >working with a Debian Developer to get a fix uploaded?
> >
> 
> It seems to me he feels some responsibility to correctly finish this fix he 
> started.  I applaud this tenacity and encourage others to emulate it.
> 
> Particularly this late in the cycle, actually fixing stuff is far better 
> than filling out a new bug.
> 
> Scott K
> 
Thank you Scott K

Yes if I break it, I feel compelled to fix it.  All is well though,
thanks to the awesome MOTU community the problem has been rectified, and
a special thanks to all that helped get the patch uploaded.

Charlie
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20090324/00ca0488/attachment.pgp