Hi,

On Wed, February 21, 2007 09:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 06:28:59PM +0000, Regis Boudin wrote:
>> The tellico packag currently in etch and unstable has a couple of nasty
>> bugs reported and fixed upstream, causing crashes and loss of data.
>
> Where are these nasty bugs described?  This information is going to be
> relevant when reviewing the update for inclusion in etch.

The full changelog of what I prepared reads :

  * "New" upstream release, aimed at Etch. Differences with 1.2.4-1 are :
    + Build fix for OOo plugin (disabled in the package anyway), r1206
    + Check if pointer is NULL *before* using it, r1212.
    + Some minor build issues
    + Use log messages instead of debug
  * Also backport a bunch of bugfixes :
    + r1216 : fix crashing bug in progressitem.
    + r1224 : clear release list when removing an image.
    + r1228 : prevent an infinite loop.
    + r1245 & r1248 : fix a race condition leading to loss of images.
    + r1265 : sometimes images wouldn't show up if the cover column was
      visible in the list view.
    + r1340 : sometimes z39.50 results would not show up.
  * Many thanks to Robby Stephenson, the uptream author, for his help
    picking the patches for inclusion.
  * Only call dh_compress once so help files are not compressed and can be
    read (Closes: #401247).

So overall, there is a build fix, use of a NULL pointer, crash, memory
leak, infinite loop, loss of data, non-showing of data and inaccessible
documentation.

The source package is in http://www.imalip.info/tellico/etch/ .
Technically, it is a new upstream release. However, the previous package
was more of a snapshot, the new release was done the next day or so, and
the
diff before the additional patches is really short ( that's the debdiff
file in http://www.imalip.info/tellico/etch/ , it shouldn't take more
than 20s to look at it completely). Considering the source code would
be virtually the same with 2 bugfixes, I went for the "almost new
upstream" option rather than the "stack up patches on top of patches"
one.
On top of it come the other .diff files, numbered after the svn referenced
in the changelog.

If anything is wrong with that, please tell me. Also I'm still not a DD
and will need a sponsor anyway. CC'ing Amaya, She's been working with me
on preparing this yesterday.

Regis

Reply via email to