Fwd: Re: Updating lirc to upstream

[Alec Leamas]

[resending message accidentally sent as PM]


On 24/05/16 12:04, Robie Basak wrote:


Hi Robie,
>> My interest is to update lirc to a more recent version. As of today, lirc
>> has released 0.9.4. Ubuntu is still on 0.9.0,  from 2011, and this is
>> becoming a problem upstream since we cannot really support the users of this
>> very old version.  Also, recent kernel changes will break lirc 0.9.0 in some
>> usecases.
>>
>> Of course, I have tried to make the update to Debian. However, the debian
>> lirc maintainer is inactive, so this road is complicated. I have tried,
>> really, for more or less a year. I have a packaging and a sponsor, but I'm
>> blocked on the  maintainer.
> I don't see a Debian bug against lirc for this (based on your
> description I'd expect to see bugs in Debian tagged with patches).

There is a RFS request  [1]. There is also a large number of bugs fixed
in the tentative changelog, one of them filed by me more than a year ago
about lirc lagging too much from upstream [2]. The last package, same as
in the PPA, is also available on mentors.debian.net.
> Though I do see only NMU uploads in Debian recently. It might be worth
> sorting out bugs in Debian so that it's clear to all Debian developers
> exactly what the situation is. Have you joined Debian's lirc Maintainer
> Team?

Tried to, but no reply... that's part of the mess. The crew has
abandoned this ship, and the maintainer is the only one left.

> Where exactly are you blocked on the maintainer?

He sent one answer about January with some remarks which I fixed. After
that, I got no response.  Given the situation and debian policy, my
sponsor cannot upload this without a reply from the maintainer. We are
both frustrated, but stuck. I'm sending this message after an advice
from my sponsor, who basically sees no other option.

>> So, questions: Is it policy-wise possible to update lirc in universe to
>> 0.9.4 even though Debian is still at 0.9.0?
> Yes, we can do this. Going faster than Debian is a valid reason.
> However, that does introduce a maintenance burden, so I'd expect whoever
> pushes ahead with lirc in Ubuntu to make a reasonable commitment about
> future maintenance.

Well, what we have done is to add a .deb packaging to upstream. I think
the upstream project can maintain this, although a separate packager is
of course always the best.

> How big is the diff of the debian/ directory? This is the part that I'd
> want to review carefully.
   It's still large, attaching it... (please don't care about the
changelog, it's broken).

> So yes, we can do it, but as an Ubuntu sponsor, I'd personally prefer to
> see Debian refuse this type of patchset first, and I don't see anything
> like that right now. Other sponsors' views may vary.


Cheers!

--alec


[1]
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreporhttps://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=806815t.cgi?bug=806815

[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=777199

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20160524/82fe54a9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: debian.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 110099 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20160524/82fe54a9/attachment-0001.bin>