Re: [damien.doligez@inria.fr: [Caml-list] announcement: Objective Caml 3.08.3]
Hello Release Managers.
This is in reply to Andreas's comment on irc where vorlon mentioned the
mldonkey RC bug.
Given Sylvain's comment that mldonkey should not be in testing, i think this
is a green light to go ahead, i will scan the weekly RC bug list for other
issues though.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:06:40AM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> Sven wrote :
> >
> > Sylvain, i feel bad about this whole mldonkey mess, we should have noticed
> > earlier and helped you out on this, we do quite a bad job as sponsors or
> > mentors or whatever on this account.
> >
> > I have (quickly) read both RC bug reports, and it is quite murky. I am not
> > fully sure of how things are, but i would say :
> >
> > 1) chose a mldonkey group and user, and have it created and make sure it
> > works with it. If somebody has already a mldonkey user, output a note to the
> > user telling him to remove it or whatever. (or a more helpfull selection as
> > posted in the bug report).
> >
> > 2) make sure all files get created. /var/cache/mldonkey would maybe be a
> > better default than /var/lib/mldonkey.
> >
> > 3) if removing the file as conffile does the job, then let's do it. more to
> > this below.
> >
> > 4) take advantage of debconf's priority levels to ask at high (the default)
> > priority only the minimum set of questions, and go into more details at
> > level medium or low.
> >
> > as for ucf/conffiles issue, i am not sure.
> >
> > Could you patch mldonkey to look at /usr/share/mldonkey for its config file as
> > well as /etc/mldonkey ? Making /etc/mldonkey the default, maybe overriding
> > individual values from the share version ?
> >
> > This way you would ship a commented out /etc/mldonkey config file as conffile,
> > have a big warning about the ucf handling, and that users should really use
> > dpkg-reconfigure to handle the file, but still give them power to override
> > this.
> >
> > Let's fix this as soon as possible, and let's go to #debian-ocaml-maint this
> > evening if needed to work those issues out if possible.
> >
> > A quick note to the reporters of this bug, well as i read this bug report the
> > first time, i found that the first reporting of the bugs where a wee bit too
> > agressive, especially coming from a debian developer. But let's hope we can
> > fix things in a fashion agreable to all now.
> >
>
> I have no time to answer you completely ( i will be late for my job ).
Ok, let's speak later.
> In two word : mldonkey is not in testing, it is only in unstable. I made
> it on purpose, i am not happy with the package and the actual version
> doesn't work well with a lot of server.
>
> I will upload a revised package in one or two week, but i don't want it
> into sarge.
Ok.
> I am suprised that a debian package only in unstable could made so much
> noise.
Because many people use it, and i think it will be sorely missing in sarge,
but you know best.
> I will answer longer tonight.
Ok, basically, if the RMs confirm this, we will go ahead with a staged upload.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: