On 2012-07-31 10:49, Mattias Ellert wrote: > sön 2012-07-29 klockan 12:46 +0200 skrev Niels Thykier: >> On 2012-07-29 06:47, Mattias Ellert wrote: >>> Package: release.debian.org >>> Severity: normal >>> User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org >>> Usertags: freeze-exception >>> >>> unblock bdii/5.2.12-1 >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> The bdii package was removed from testing due to an RC bug, together >>> with the packages that depends on it. The 5.2.12-1 update fixes the RC >>> bug (bug #663444). I would like to request a freeze exception for this >>> update to allow the bdii package and the packages depending on it to be >>> part of the release. >>> >>> Mattias >>> >> >> Why did you include a new upstream release in this? It makes it harder >> for us to review and reduces the chance for you to get the unblock? >> Does this upstream release have important bug fixes, if so what are they? >
Hi Mattias, > I had been preparing an update to a new upstream release for a long time > before finally making the upload. On several occasions I have completed > a potential update and then looked at the BTS and thought that I should > fix that RC bug before doing the upload. Since fixing the RC bug was not > trivial this always ment that I held off doing the upload. I finally did > fix the RC bug. The fixed package compared to the last package I > prepared and did not upload was really just fixing the RC bug. > My problem is; this RC bug was reported in March. It receives no (public) reply from you until you close it with the 5.2.12-1. While you do have a point that conffile handling is not trivial, the reporter gave you a link to http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling to assist you. That page has both the "old school" handling and plenty of references to the dpkg-maintscript-helper tool. Failing that, an email to d-mentors could easily have given you the answer within a day. Sorry, but I do not buy the 4 month delay for fixing this. > The changes in the package between the previous upload and the new one > are very minor. It is true that if you list the files changed the list > is not short, but most of the changed files are in the debian directory. > These changes are there to do the fix of the RC bug, fix some lintian > warnings and update the copyright file to the new recommended format. > The changes to the patches are just dropping the parts of the patches > that were accepted upstream and rebasing the remaining parts. > These changes I get and I can (mostly) ignore. My primary concern is actually the upstream changes. Admittedly I am not too pleased with the dh_pysupport -> dh_python... > For the changes to the upstream itself, i.e. the files outside the > debian directory. These are mainly changes to the default configuration > to reduce the memory consumption and to add support for IPv6. > Those changes sound nice to have, especially lack of IPv6 is in fact starting to be a bit sad. The problem here is timing; during the freeze we have to manually review this stuff. >> [...] > >> I haven't read the full diff, so there are possibly more issues lurking >> in it. In its current state, I am not inclined to grant an exception. >> >> ~Niels >> >> PS: urgency=high is no effect when the package is not in testing (in >> case you weren't aware of it) > > I was not aware. However, the package was in testing until 2 days before > I did the upload. The fact the package was removed made the update very > urgent - and then the urgency is ignored because it was removed.... > Well... I don't make the rules. > Urgency describes how important it is for people to upgrade their package. If bdii had still been in testing, the urgency would have made (partly?) sense... Anyway, it is hardly a problem, so just a FYI. :) > I can make another update using the dpkg-maintscript-helper script > instead of my own not-so-great fix. If you truly do not want to take > advantage of the fixes for memory usage and IPv6 support I could also > upload a version where I backport the fix for the RC bug to the 5.2.5 > version. But I personally think using the new version would be better. > Let me know what you think is petter. > > Mattias > Please do not get me wrong; I like improvements as much as every one else, but I don't like having to manually review them. I believe the RC bug fix on 5.2.5-2 should be reasonable sane and lets take that as a starting point. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
