[08:21] <TheMaster> Rhonda: FWIW, if your reason for not applying https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=761123 is testing, I've tested it since about 2014-11-26.
[08:24] <TheMaster> Also, did ahf ever look at 20fix_ssl_proxy_hostname_check?
[11:10] <Rhonda> TheMaster, reason might be I haven't looked at it at all yet. xD
[11:11] <Rhonda> I'm still hoping for a way to make the ubuntu diff unneeded, in the way to have different series files …
[11:13] <Rhonda> Maybe I should finally switch to dh style debian/rules, too.  It still makes things more complicated for complcated things, and having to wade around in hopefully better documentation these days, but still needs the documentation consulting every now and then when something pops up, which is kinda annoying.  I prefered the readable and clear debian/rules so far.
[11:16] <Rhonda> About the ssl_proxy_hostname_check patch, I'm uncertain right now to be honest.
[11:16] <Rhonda> I once went through the patches with upstream, I think exg was still hanging around at that time, so … no clue right now. :)
[17:33] <reversib1ean> I'm upgrading a package to new upstream version. But the package includes over 50 patches. DO I have to go through (quilt push) each patch or is there a workaround?
[17:38] <teward> reversib1ean: you have to figure out which patches were applied, yes.  Reading through changelogs and patch descriptions never hurts, because you can figure if the patches are already applied in the latest upstream version
[17:40] <Rhonda> quilt push -a # and hope for the best
[17:41] <teward> ^
[17:42] <reversib1ean> ok I'll see.
[17:54] <reversib1ean> Rhonda: -a didn't help much though : ) still going 1 by 1
[17:56] <Laney> if it says that the patch can be reverse-applied then that's a good hint that it is in this upstream release
[17:56] <Laney> otherwise it is indeed a matter of fixing them up
[17:57] <Laney> or otherwise considering them (e.g. no longer necessary and can be dropped)
[17:57] <reversib1ean> right now i'm forcing each one of them
[17:58] <Laney> you need to refresh after force to make the .patch file actually get updated
[17:58] <Laney> but that is unlikely to be a good idea as they will be only partially applied
[18:01] <reversib1ean> Laney: i'm doing it in order. but some says 'reverse applied' and some says 'enforce with -f'. is that normal?
[18:02] <Laney> -f is like "apply as much as you can"
[18:02] <Laney> but it'll tell you which bits it couldn't do and you should fix that
[18:02] <Laney> (then 'quilt refresh')
[18:02] <Laney> reverse applied is usually 'drop this patch'
[18:05] <reversib1ean> Laney: oops, then I've done everything wrong them. I just ran -f for everything except those that can be reverse applied
[18:05] <reversib1ean> *wrong then