Hi Barak On 27-03-2021 22:09, Barak A. Pearlmutter wrote: > I was preparing one, but upstream released an official 2.15 release. > Which has an exhaustive test suite enabled in the build and passes (by > upstream standards; there are scary messages but they're expected) on > all architectures. > > The delta is too big to sensibly check. But it's a proper release with > upstream blessing etc. If I were release manager I'd wait for people > to test it for a couple weeks, then (assuming all is okay) let it in. > Your call though.
We're asking for targeted fixes for a while now. New upstream releases are typically not that. I even went ahead and looked at the diff, but there isn't even an upstream changelog. So, you'll really have to explain to us what's in the new upstream release and explain that it's a bug fix release, but to be honest it doesn't look like that. This looks like it's going to be NACK. I suggest you consider doing a revert of the new upstream release and fix the bug that will have your package autoremoved and ask for an unblock for that. Paul PS: if the source has such an extensive test suite, doesn't that (at least partially) qualify for autopkgtesting? Remember that packages that have substantial testing with autopkgtest *of the installed binaries* currently don't need to request unblocks if their not a key package.
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
