Hi,

I noticed that you've made an upload of "knot" to the proposed-updates
queue.

The metadata for the bug referenced in the changelog (#995576) implies
that the bug affects the package in unstable and is not yet fixed there
- is that correct? If so, the situation in unstable needs resolving
before we can consider the stable update; if not, please add an
appropriate fixed version to the bug so that the BTS knows the correct situation.

On a more general note, please do file release.debian.org p-u bugs,
rather than just uploading the package. It's much easier to track the
state of the update via a bug rather than us having to start a mailing
list discussion. (As per dev-ref, if the change is likely to be
accepted then you can upload after filing the bug, without waiting for confirmation.)

Regards,

Adam

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello,

On 8/22/22 18:41, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

Hi,

I noticed that you've made an upload of "knot" to the proposed-updates
queue.

The metadata for the bug referenced in the changelog (#995576) implies
that the bug affects the package in unstable and is not yet fixed there
- is that correct? If so, the situation in unstable needs resolving
before we can consider the stable update; if not, please add an
appropriate fixed version to the bug so that the BTS knows the correct situation.

It's been fixed upstream in 3.1.3 release.

I've marked the bug fixed in 3.1.3-2 by sending mail to
control@bugs.debian.org - is that the recommended way?

I'd prefer to reply to the bug with a magic syntax but also a human
readable explanation. The syntax I used with control server didn't seem
to work in bug reply.

On a more general note, please do file release.debian.org p-u bugs,
rather than just uploading the package. It's much easier to track the
state of the update via a bug rather than us having to start a mailing
list discussion. (As per dev-ref, if the change is likely to be
accepted then you can upload after filing the bug, without waiting for confirmation.)

Sorry for the disruption, this is only my second stable upload and the
previous one already had a proper p-u bug created (I think) so I didn't
realize an extra bug (aside from 995576) is required in this case.

This bug isn't really severe, but a user requested a fix and even
provided solution through Salsa so I wanted to do my part without
realizing the need for an extra bug/process.

Please feel free to cancel this update if it isn't worth it, I have a
hard time judging that.

Next time, I'll be sure to file release.debian.org p-u bug before uploading.

There sure is a lot to learn about Debian processes, thanks for
clarification.

Cheers,

Jakub 📦

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 2022-08-22 at 19:46 +0200, Jakub Ružička wrote:
[...]

It's been fixed upstream in 3.1.3 release.

I've marked the bug fixed in 3.1.3-2 by sending mail to control@bugs.debian.org - is that the recommended way?

I'd prefer to reply to the bug with a magic syntax but also a human
readable explanation. The syntax I used with control server didn't
seem
to work in bug reply.

You can use "Control" pseudo-headers in the body of a mail to a bug. https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting#additionalpseudoheaders has some examples.

[...]

Next time, I'll be sure to file release.debian.org p-u bug before
uploading.

There sure is a lot to learn about Debian processes, thanks for clarification.

Thanks. There's some more information about the workflow for updates to
stable at https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#special-case-uploads-to-the-stable-and-oldstable-distributions
if that's of any help.

Regards,

Adam

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)