Hi Tony, tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> (24/08/2012): > Please consider an unblock for package tomcat-native due to #685516. > The current version in wheezy (1.1.23) is incompatible with the > version of tomcat7-7.0.28 in wheezy.
that's the kind of things which would have been nice to have in the changelog, we have: | * New upstream release (closes: #685516) instead, that'd be better: | * New upstream release: | - tomcat7 is wheezy (7.0.28) is incompatible with tomcat-native 1.1.23, | it requires 1.1.24 or higher (Closes: #685516). That would save everyone a BTS lookup. > tomcat-native version 1.1.24 is compatible with and has been tested > with both tomcat6-6.0.35 and tomcat7-7.0.28. We recognize that the > requesting a new upstream version is typically not permitted during > the freeze, but in this case the differences between upstream versions > aren't extensive and the package is intended for use in conjunction > with tomcat6 and tomcat7 (I am not aware of other uses), so it seems a > shame to release with a version incompatible with tomcat7. Yep, this one doesn't look too insane. It would have been nice to include a source debdiff, stripping out the *.html and configure changes. (( I hope the latter really is due to just that: -# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.59. +# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.68 )) Out of curiosity, if the primary use is with tomcat6 and tomcat7, how come it wasn't spotted earlier? What if that version brings subtle regressions? Will anyone notice/fix in a timely fashion? Looking at the diff (please bear in mind I know little to nothing in java/jni, so those are naïve questions): - is tcn_socket_t for internal use only or is it exposed outside the library? - same question for tcn_pollset_t. - is it ok to get rid of some functions, like update_ttl? If answers are 2*internal+yes, we should be able to unblock it. Mraw, KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
