Comment 6 for bug 1960149

Thanks for review Łukasz.

Fixes and comments inline. With the requested change in the version number, I'm using a different PPA to upload the version since it is lower than the one in jammy-package PPA. New one is: https://launchpad.net/~j-rivero/+archive/ubuntu/ogre-next-jammy

> Remark re: the .orig tarball. Even though I think this is generally *fine* but when re-downloading (and auto-repacking) with uscan the current 2.2.5 tarball, there are a few additional files present in the tarball in comparison to the tarball used in the PPA upload (there's some .hgignore, .travis.yaml etc. files in it). I would normally expect to get the exact same tarball contents from running uscan. In this case I think it's fine, but this might mean that the debian/copyright exclude list needs to be modified or, otherwise, no hand modifications done to the source please.

The explanation of the difference comes from the fact of having that configuration to exclude some files in my ~/.gbp.conf file. I added what I found to the d/copyright for completeness.

> * I see that in Debian new a previous version of ogre-next is staged - ogre-next_2.2.5+dfsg3-1. From what I can tell that version has a different set of binary packages (libogre-next2.2 instead of the set of libogrenext*2.2.5 binaries). Would it be possible for you to submit -2 to Debian NEW? In case this gets accepted by Debian, it would be troublesome if a different set of binary packages was generated there.

I requested to my usual sponsors in Debian to have the package re-uploaded.

> * Regarding that point above ^ - the binary package name numbers feel a bit confusing, with their description and purpose not being quite clear. Are those the 'final' binary package names? If so, could we expand their individual long descriptions to be a bit more clear on what their purpose is?

I've added the reason why we are using the whole version in the package names. In summary: upstream does not guarantee ABI compatibility even in patch version bumps. The whole information is available in the README.Debian.

> * The version number needs fixing. 2.2.5+dfsg3-2ubuntu2 means that Debian has 2.2.5+dfsg3-2 and we introduce an ubuntu delta on top. Since this package is not accepted into Debian as of yet, the version number needs to be 2.2.5+dfsg3-0ubuntu2 (or, possibly, -0ubuntu1), with -0ubuntuX indicating 'Debian doesn't have this yet, but Ubuntu does'. This makes it easier for us to switch to Debian once the package is available there as well.

Makes sense to me. Changed to -0ubuntu1.

Thanks again, let me know if I need to fix anything more.