Page MenuHomeLubuntu Development

Merge form upstream.
ClosedPublic

Authored by The_LoudSpeaker on Sun, Jan 31, 8:24 PM.

Details

Summary

New upstream version 0.16.1

Test Plan

Test if it's a correct merge.

Diff Detail

Repository
rLIBLXQTPACKAGING liblxqt Packaging
Lint
Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.
Unit
Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

The_LoudSpeaker created this revision.

That does match up to Debian though I have to say the commented bits in d/control seems strange.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sun, Jan 31, 8:41 PM
wxl requested changes to this revision.Sun, Jan 31, 9:10 PM

Wrong branch, unfortunately.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Sun, Jan 31, 9:10 PM
wxl requested changes to this revision.Mon, Feb 1, 7:26 PM

I have one little problem.

debian/copyright
11 ↗(On Diff #313)

^ This kind of bugs me. Why are we removing copyright information? Maybe this is because LXQt backlight helper was dropped and those were the developers? I think it's super messy that we still have some remnants of it commented out.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Mon, Feb 1, 7:26 PM
In D105#2281, @wxl wrote:

I have one little problem.

So what do we do? Remove completely the backlight part instead of commenting it out or keep it commented out and include the copyright section?

debian/copyright
11 ↗(On Diff #313)

To clarify here, my feelings about using comments to remove things is really just an annoyance on my part due to bad form upstream. That's not the reason for not accepting this.

My concern is with removing copyright information which is, as a general rule, bad. I don't know that this is because of backlight helper, but given the comments, I'm thinking that *may* be why. It needs further investigation to justify this in my mind.

updated copyright. debian one is old.

The more I look at this the crazier it makes me. Like why are we commenting out the backlight crap that we are then installing in the install file? This is madness. That said, it does seem to build without errors (confirmed by my own hand), so I guess I'll just turn a blind eye. I guess we can always fix it later if needed.

Going forward, I really think we should maybe just ignore Debian and package from upstream. I mean that's what CI kind of does anyways.

I'll land this with an OK from @kc2bez.

P.S. If I'm going to be super nitpicky your timestamp should be updated, but whatever.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Wed, Feb 3, 8:10 PM
In D105#2291, @wxl wrote:

The more I look at this the crazier it makes me. Like why are we commenting out the backlight crap that we are then installing in the install file? This is madness. That said, it does seem to build without errors (confirmed by my own hand), so I guess I'll just turn a blind eye. I guess we can always fix it later if needed.

Going forward, I really think we should maybe just ignore Debian and package from upstream. I mean that's what CI kind of does anyways.

I'll land this with an OK from @kc2bez.

P.S. If I'm going to be super nitpicky your timestamp should be updated, but whatever.

I am good with this. I find the commented stuff weird too. It isn't prohibited in the policy manual but it isn't exactly encouraged either.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.