Re: gnome-cpufreq-applet 0.3.1-6.1 not suitable for stable
Hi Thijs,
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 you uploaded gnome-cpufreq-applet 0.3.1-6.1
> to stable-proposed-updates with the following changelog:
> * Non-maintainer upload targetted at stable-proposed-updates.
> * Use CDBS' "simple patch system". (Closes: #313457)
> - Really apply the fr.po fix. (Closes: #251155)
> - Really apply the fix for segfaults when scaling_available_frequencies is
> missing. (Closes: #308362)
> These kind of changes are unsuitable for an update to stable;
> we accept only fixes for critical problems. Your upload seems
> to contain changes for regular bugs. Please upload these
> to unstable instead. This upload will be rejected.
Please note that I'm not the regular maintainer of the
gnome-cpufreq-applet package, I sponsored this stable upload on the
request of the maintainer, Andrew Law. However, as a sponsor, I
checked that the changes were suitable for a stable release.
The change in itself is a one-liner, the inclusion of the forgotten
patch system include, but results in two patches being applied (in the
current source package, these simply sit in debian/patches but are
useless).
These patches fix important issues, check #313457 for the same story,
or #308362 and #251155 for the technical issues. #308362 seems
particularly nasty in that it:
- causes crashes
- renders the package unusable
... on some systems.
My quantitative understanding of the issue at hand isn't very good, I
can't tell whether 10 or 90% of Debian systems would be affected.
I pinged Martin Schulze a couple of times about checking whether the
upload should or should not be made, and finally I uploaded it with a
mail to which he responded:
"I am not convinced the package should be updated."
I finally turned to Andrew Lau to write down some of his motivations
for the upload, but never received any reply.
In my memory (but I can't find the mails, perhaps it was on IRC), I
indicated this fact to joey who later rejected the package, or perhaps
said he would.
From my point of view, you can reject the upload for "lack of motivated
parties to get this fixed", but please use your own judgment to check
whether the fixes are valuable or not.
Cheers,
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
Current Earth status: NOT DESTROYED
Reply to: