Bug#1107857: UDD/patches: false positive: upstream patches by definitio
From
Theodore Y. Ts'o@21:1/5 to
All on Mon Jun 16 03:30:02 2025
XPost: linux.debian.bugs.dist
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
The UDD/patches.cgi script assumes that a patch which does not have a "Forwarded" field (which per DEP-3, is OPTIONAL) is assumed to not have
been forwarded upstream. However, if the patch has a source of
"upstream" (which is defined in DEP-3), by definition it does not need
to be forwarded upstream, because it *came* from upstream.
The UDD/patches.cgi script should be fixed to have this hueristics,
because it's quite silly currently:
Among the 20 debian patches available in version 1.47.2-3 of the
package, we noticed the following issues:
19 patches where the metadata indicates that the patch has not yet been
forwarded upstream. You should either forward the patch upstream or
update the metadata to document its real status.
But the metadata *does* document its real status; it says that the patch
came from upstream.
For now, I will ignore the UDD/patches script as being errant nonsense, especially for packages like e2fsprogs which follow an "upstrea-first"
policy. A patch will never enter a debian package unless it is first
upstream, since I am both the upstream and the Debian package
maintainer.
Cheers,
- Ted
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)