[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#689698: marked as done (unblock: gupnp/0.10.3-1)

Your message dated Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:25:53 +0100
with message-id <1365866753.4627.45.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#689698: please unblock gupnp stack
has caused the Debian Bug report #689698,
regarding unblock: gupnp/0.10.3-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
689698: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=689698
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock packages in the gupnp stack

The upstream stable series bugfix updates has been sitting in
unstable for over a month now without a single bug reported.
The updates improves interopability with DLNA devices on
the market and is for some users essential fixes.

source packages to unblock:
gssdp 0.12.2.1-1
gupnp 0.18.4-1
gupnp-av 0.10.3-1
gupnp-vala 0.10.4-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (300, 'unstable'), (100, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=sv_SE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 12:43 +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 02:29:29PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > The thing is, these updated packages mean rather big diffs, and don't
> > seem to close any reported bugs, according to the changelogs.  So I'm
> > afraid this isn't a very high priority.
> 
> If there is anything I can do from my end to make it easier for you,
> please tell me... Interopability is everything for this kind of software.
> 
> If I don't hear anything I'll trust you know what's best for our users
> and simply leave the packages to their destiny.

The diffs didn't turn out to be that big once a lot of the noise is
filtered out. I've argued with myself a lot over this, but have finally
settled on the side on unblocking the packages to get the
interoperability fixes; I hope we don't end up with that being an issue
in future.

(On the subject of the future, presumably these sort of issues are
likely to come up during wheezy's stable lifetime as well?)

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: