Bug#685209: unblock: ball/1.4.1+20111206-4
On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 13:17 +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> On 08/18/2012 12:48 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 12:05 +0200, Steffen Moeller wrote:
> >> The uploader is upstream who kindly added a patch to fix a FTBFS.
[...]
> > While I'm happy to believe that a number of the patches are required to
> > fix building with gcc-4.7, these at least don't look like they are:
> >
> > patches/0007-Fixed-the-FPT-version-of-bond-order-assignment.patch | 447 ++++
> > patches/0008-Added-MAX_PENALTY-option-to-bond-order-assignment.patch | 975 ++++++++++
> > patches/0009-Fixed-a-bug-in-the-AssignBondOrderProcessor.patch | 271 ++
> >
> > Indeed some of those look like they may well introduce ABI changes if
> > the changes are reflected in libball.
Some comment on this, possibly from upstream, would be helpful. I
realise that nothing outside of ball uses the libraries, but they (I
missed libballview) are shipped as public soversioned libraries and
nothing in the package dependencies appears to ensure that the packages
are upgraded in step.
> > This obviously isn't a gcc 4.7 fix:
> >
> > patches/0011-Fix-compilation-of-Python-bindings-with-new-sip-vers.patch | 25
> >
> > It may well be needed for the package to build in unstable now, but it's
> > certainly not covered by "Fix compilation with g++ >= 4.7".
>
> >From the description of those bugs I tend to agree that indeed that is more
> than the FTBFS required. Upstream mostly works on version 2 of BALL now, so
> knowing whatever ships with Wheezy now to be worked with for a while, I presume
> Andreas (upstream) to just have wanted some of the later experiences
> backported. A respective description in the changelog is missing.
At the very least, yes.
> > Was simply forcing building with gcc 4.6 considered as an option?
>
> I did not know myself this was allowed for anything in stable. The bond-order
> changes were apparently important. With my Debian Med hat on, I am always
> eager to have such close ties with upstream so Debian gets the best that is
> possible, not only something that compiles.
In general, I'd agree. The focus on changes during a freeze is somewhat
narrower, however.
> I understand that you see difficulties to accept the package for Wheezy
> as it is. Would it help you to have the debian/changelog updated with the
> maintainer change and a description about those changes to the bond order?
A description of those patches would certainly help. As would an
explanation as to why they're so important that they either meet the
published freeze guidelines or merit an exception.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: