Re: RFS: webfs (updated package)
Dear Christoph and all other fellows,
now I got into a situation with many unknown angles. At least for me.
torsdag den 28 oktober 2010 klockan 20:15 skrev Christoph Egger detta:
> Mats Erik Andersson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.21+ds1-7
> > of my package "webfs".
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > webfs - lightweight http server for static content
> > The package appears to be pedantically lintian clean.
> > The upload would fix a single bug: 601044,
> > and thus make packaging in Debian and Ubuntu equivalent.
> > This is an FTBFS when using "binutils-gold". The problem was
> > reported from the Ubuntu team.
> Your last upload ( -6) was a translation update and hasn't migrated
> to testing yet. I'd suggest asking the release team for a freeze
> exception (it's translation only so shouldn't be a problem). After -6
> migrating I'd upload this fix for you (optionally to experimental).
I was imagining that two trivial changes could be covered by a single
unblock request to the Release Managers. All the more so, since only
two days [sic] after my upload to mentors.d.n of webfs_1.21+ds1-6,
the Ubuntu gang submitted the bug report on an FTBFS against binutils-gold.
Should I interpret the present answer as a sign that it is much better to
ask for an unblock of each single package release, rather than to incorporate
two or more minute changes into one sensible request? Hence always delay
changes in order that any migration period passes in its entirety?
I now observe a further twist. The PTS claims this for webfs_1.21+ds1-6:
* Too young, only 7 of 10 days old.
* Ignoring block request by freeze, due to unblock request by mehdi.
* Not considered.
This gives me the impression that a benign deity is observing my steps and has
now intervened far enough as to prepare the elevation of my package, even without
my explicit request to see this action. A correct interpretation?
Best regards as always,
Mats E Andersson