On 3/23/19 7:45 PM, Robert J. Clay wrote: > Note that due to illness; although I updated our 'ledgersmb-1.6' pkg > for v1.6.10 I haven't yet updated the 'ledgersmb' pkg for that version > so what's in Debian Testing is still only v1.6.9. And since the hard > freeze in preparation for the Debian release of Buster as the new > stable has gone active, there is no more auto migration to Testing for > updated packages in Debian unstable until after the new version has > been released. > > Besides still waiting for the last 3 debconf translations so that the > pkg can be updated with them, I've also been thinking about a major > change in the package; that being changing it so that it uses the dojo > distributed in the LedgerSMB archive instead of that in Debian like is > already being done with our 'ledgersmb-1.6' package, on the basis that > the version in Debian is not the same as that actually being used by > the app itself. > > There's not that much of a dojo related version difference with what > LedgerSMB 1.6 uses (Debian testing has v1.14.2) but that's not the > case for LSMB 1.7 so it's something I need to look at in any case. > Actually I don't think that is a good idea. The release cycle starts again after buster is ready, and there is enough time to get dojo in sync with what is in LedgerSMB. Also it is the general policy in Debian to use the available packaged version instead of including it in the application package. This is for various good reasons (maintenance, security, package size, ...). Regards Racke > A ledgersmb package with major changes could always be uploaded to > Debian Experimental (& our package repos, of course), so that's what > I'll be looking at doing if necessary. > > Related to that is still getting the autopkgtest functionality done > for the package. That (which does 'as installed' testing) is useful I > think in any case but in particular having to do related to the > different dojo versions. But that is based on my thinking that the JS > code is actually being at least somewhat exercised in the 't/' and or > 'xt/' testing, which I was wondering about due to something one the > other devs said/ but which I've been assured that the JS code is being > exercised in the bdd tests in xt/. So I figure to work on getting the > t/ tests working for the autopkgtest to start off with and continue > from there to the xt/ tests. > > Any comments/questions/etc, please let know. > > -- Ecommerce and Linux consulting + Perl and web application programming. Debian and Sympa administration. Provisioning with Ansible.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list ..hidden.. https://lists.ledgersmb.org/mailman/listinfo/devel