[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: rc3 release blockers

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:33:07AM +0000, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> On Máirt, 2005-03-01 at 16:35 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > [Aside: A few non-d-i packages that build udebs are in inconsistent states in
> > unstable, and the newer versions of them won't go in for rc3 unless this
> > is cleared up in time. Which is problimatic because we have older
> > versions of these udebs in testing from rc2, probably missing sources by
> > now:

> >  - eject is missing arm and mipsel
> >  - hdparm is missing mipsel
> >  - lvm2 is missing mipsel and FTBFS on sparc
> >  - ppp is missing mipsel
> >  - strace FTBFS on alpha, ia64, s390
> > ]

> With exquisite timing, bug #297661 was filed as Release-Critical against
> iso-codes. A fix is now pending in CVS, but not uploaded.

> The problem was incorrect entries in iso_639.tab; this file is not used
> in iso_3166_udeb, in d-i; the file is marked deprecated as the XML
> version is to be used instead; however it has gotten out-of-sync with
> corrections and changes in the XML version; now fixed.

> The decision is whether or not to do an iso-codes upload. Its an arch:
> all file, now problems with buildds delaying the build. My preference is
> to downgrade the bug to Important: and upload post-sarge; if it breaks
> other software (as claimed) then fix the other software to use the XML
> version. This is noted in email to submitter and BTS. 

> The decision is in Joeyh and the RM's hands.

As far as I'm concerned, it's entirely Joey's call.  When it's possible to
work around a release-critical bug by making changes to packages outside the
installer, it is certainly acceptable that we do so if there's a need.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: