[Bug 2095011] Re: [BPO] sphinxcontrib-globalsubs/0.1.2-2 from plucky

[Sebastien Bacher]

Reviewing the request, any reason to go for a backport rather than a
SRU? The rational makes sense and it seems a SRU would be more
appropriate there since it would make it easier for developers to get
the package (new packages are fine to SRU according to
https://canonical-sru-docs.readthedocs-
hosted.com/en/latest/reference/requirements/#other-safe-cases)

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Sponsors, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2095011

Title:
  [BPO] sphinxcontrib-globalsubs/0.1.2-2 from plucky

Status in sphinxcontrib-globalsubs package in Ubuntu:
  New
Status in sphinxcontrib-globalsubs source package in Noble:
  Confirmed

Bug description:
  [Impact]

  This is a new package providing a sphinx extension available in
  Plucky. It will be necessary to build the manpages for systemd in the
  near future after this upstream PR is merged:
  https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/33673

  In order to allow developers running on Noble to develop on systemd
  upstream smoothly, having the package available in noble-backports
  will ensure the experience works out of the box and without hiccups.

  [Scope]

  Backport version 0.1.2-2 from plucky to noble-backports

  [Other Info]

  The existing package in this source is unchanged, just a dch --bpo
  changelog entry with the appropriate version, such as:

  sphinxcontrib-globalsubs (0.1.2-2~bpo24.04.1) noble-backports;
  urgency=medium

    * Rebuild for noble-backports. (LP: #2095011)

   -- Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org>  Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:12:59 +0000

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sphinxcontrib-globalsubs/+bug/2095011/+subscriptions