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

Re: arla packages are horribly outdated

On 00-04-29 Luis Casillas wrote:
> > > The arla packages are based on version 0.23, which is several versions
> > > behind the latest one (0.32 at current).  The bug tracking system page
> > > for arla shows many bugs that have been unaddressed for a very long
> > > time (more than a year).
> > 
> > Well, as potato has been frozen for a some time now, we can't add new
> > upstream packages to it. New Upstream version have to go in woody. It
> > would only be possible to backport the fixes from 0.32 to 0.23.

> Well, potato hasn't been frozen for a year.

And it shouldn't become frozen for a year as we want to try to release
as soon as possible.

> > > More importantly, arla-modules is built only for kernel 2.0.36, which
> > > is not the default kernel for potato, and making the source package
> > > build for a different kernel is not trivial.  (I tried to modify the
> > > source package to build for kernel 2.2.13, but ran into complications
> > > since the system, following the standard include files, insists in
> > > building a package for 2.2.14.)
> > 
> > Hm, what errors exactly? I think fixing this bug for potato should be
> > possible. Otherwise we could think about removing it from potato, but
> > this decision should be made by the release-manager.

> If I remember correctly, it had to do with the fact that the libc6-dev
> installs its own version of the kernel include files, and somewhere in
> there there's a #define that makes the module build process believe it
> has to build a kernel for 2.2.14.  I played around for 45 minutes with
> the package control files, but when I realized that I was doing all
> that work just to get a very outdated version of arla to work, I gave
> up.  I just grabbed the newest source tarball and built it, and I'm
> quite happy that way.

> I was thinking that removing it from potato would make sense.  I
> personally don't see the sense of including an ancient version of
> pre-alpha software.

Well it's up to our release-manager or the maintainer itself to make the
final descision, but after reading your comments above, I would also
think that removing it from potato and putting the new version in woody
seems to be good solution.

          Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member
    1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853

Attachment: pgpP7YM7NiQMB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: