2014-11-25 20:13 GMT+00:00 Dominique Dumont <dominique.dum...@hp.com>: > > Hmm, according to [1], "arm64 and ppc64el have made enough progress to be > release architectures for Jessie. Britney no longer has special handling > for these two. Therefore, FTBFS regressions for arm64 and ppc64el > are now release critical (but non-regressions are not)." > > Since the fix is quite easy, I think we should not bother the release team and > upload the fixed package to unstable. (and we need to have the unblock > approved by Dec 5th). > > Thoughts ? > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00005.html
First and foremost, I am fine with whatever you want to do, I don't have a strong opinion. I gave my opinion in order to avoid (or at least be aware) the situation where we have a package in unstable during the freeze that release managers don't want to accept in testing. With ppc64el being "fringe" I meant that, independently of what the release team think, since this is not a mainstream architecture and quite recent, and the bug triggered only under certain conditions, I don't think that there will be lots of people affected by this bug. As a person who helped to get many key packages compiling on both these new architectures (and helped them in other various ways), and made changes to several SDL packages very early on (2013) to get these architectures supported, I am happy to get these things fixed and I do really care about these new ports. I am just pointing out that it's not libsdl2 itself which FTBFS while it compiled before (regression), in which case it would be RC for sure. It's only that some packages that use libsdl2, in C++ (not C or other languages), and (if I understood correctly) only when using the non-default and still experimental -std=c++0x, fail to compile. So, in summary, I don't think that this is serious (RC), and I even have doubts that it's "important" in a broad sense. I am quite sure that if you believe that it's important and explain it (we have a bug report of somebody affected, it's not purely theoretical!), they will let it to be applied -- but not 100%, I think that Release Managers are more reluctant to accept fixes than in previous releases. Cheers. -- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montez...@gmail.com> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
