On Tuesday 23 December 2014 12:35:34 Luca Bruno wrote: > On Tuesday 16 December 2014 10:03:44 Luca Bruno wrote: > > > changelog since stable missing in changes file. > > > > Totally my fault, I'll upload a new one properly built. > > > > > I also don't think bumping the version number in that way is a good > > > idea. > > > > Can you please elaborate a bit more on this? > > I had explained the weird versioning in a previous mail with the full > > rationale [0], is this comment of yours also taking that into account? > > (In brief, the +really is to avoid screwing up the DB upgrade in Jessie) > > Just to keep the openldap team updated on this, I recently (19/12) asked > again the backport ftp-master for a check on this upload, and I've been > asked to wait for further input. > > Relevant transcript: > <Rhonda> If you are aware of that you are doing something out of the box, > you shouldn't upload before you got a response to your initial mail. > <Rhonda> kaeso: ^^. I'm sorry that we haven't responded yet, but please > take private live and the season and the freeze into account and give us a > bit of time to make up our minds about it. I think that some time has passed for this to settle, so I plan to upload tomorrow an openldap backport to NEW. Changes file is at http://paste.debian.net/142287/ What we are doing "out of the box" is the versioning, which is a bit weird on purpose. I'm quoting here below my initial email with all the reasoning, just to refresh the topic. I don't know if the non-linear progression in the changes file is a problem, in that case we may try squashing the changelog, keeping all the closes in the last entry. """ * it's NEW, but it has been requested by several users, either via BTS (#685748) or on ML[0]. * it is the same version which is going to be shipped in Jessie. We think it is a good way to have more people testing the upgrade path to the same version in Jessie. * it uses newer crypto libraries (gnutls28/nettle). This is because there are some known issues with wheezy ones, see BTS #368297. * it uses older libdb5.1. Unfortunately libdb5.3 has not been backported, and I'm not confident in doing it at this point. I am not aware of any known issue with it, though. * it embeds liblmdb. This is a known issue also in jessie/sid (BTS #750023), and the security team has been notified about this[1]. * it has a weird version: "2.4.31+really2.4.40-3~bpo70+1". This had to be done in order to avoid screwing the pre/postinst db-upgrading mechanisms in Jessie, which rely on package version to detect DB to be upgraded. I know it is a bit hackish, I'm sorry for that. * the full upgrade chain would be: "2.4.31-1+nmu2" -> "2.4.31+really2.4.40-3~bpo70+1" -> "2.4.40-3" While this is ugly as hell, it seems fine to me wrt. upgrading. """ Cheers, Luca -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Luca Bruno (kaeso) : :' : The Universal O.S. | lucab (AT) debian.org `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 0x4F3BBEBF `- http://www.debian.org | Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.