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

Re: Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this


I just noticed Scott James added a Cc to debian-devel so for those not
familiar with the bug (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241689)
some facts:

1. The bug is a FTBFS bug on amd64
2. The build fails because the file "essential-packages-list-amd64" is
   missing (contens doesn't matter, also see compromise below)
3. Other Debian ports already have their files (placeholders except
   for hurd-i386):
   hurd-i386 darwin-powerpc freebsd-i386 openbsd-i386 darwin-i386
   netbsd-i386 s390x sh3eb sh4eb sh3 sh4
4. The bug is 149 days old
5. Adding a placeholder file (also see compromise below) is all that
   is needed to fix it but a correct and complete list is in the
   bugreport too (as statement that it is identical to i386)

As per
|5.11 Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
|Another reason why NMUs are done is when a Debian developer needs to
|fix another developer's packages in order to address serious security
|problems or crippling bugs, especially during the freeze, or when the
|package maintainer is unable to release a fix in a timely fashion.

I felt an NMU would be justified. The bug is cripling to the amd64
port since everyone wanting to build a package relies on the
build-essential package and the bug wasn't fixed in a timely fashion.

Also note:
| When to do a source NMU if you are a porter
|However, if you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above
|guidelines for porting should be followed, with two
|variations. Firstly, the acceptable waiting period -- the time
|between when the bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do
|an NMU - is seven days for porters working on the unstable
|distribution. This period can be shortened if the problem is critical
|and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the
|porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed
|upon guidelines.)

149 days is certainly bigger than 7 days.

Sorry to step on your toes Scott by informing you of my plans to NMU
but build-essential is one of two packages still waiting for an amd64
patch to be added and the other one has a general RC bug and is being
worked on. Please remember that NMUs are not an hostile act.

Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes:

> On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 19:09 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Sorry, I can't respect your wish not to add the file but we could
>> compromise with a file like the other non sid archs have with "No
>> essential packages list is available for amd64 in sid" if that is your
>> wish.
> If you're happy for the file to say that, then that's ok; I agree to
> this compromise.

I never demanded any specific contents for the file. The bug was and
is only that the file is non-existant.

> That wasn't so hard now, was it?

No it wasn't, was it?

May I expect an upload with a placeholder file soon or do you want me
to continue preparing an NMU and getting it uploaded?

> You'd find people a lot more willing to work with you if you offered
> more help and agreed to more compromises than you threaten with NMUs.
>> > Once amd64 has been added to sid, build-essential in sid will be updated
>> > to carry an essential-packages-list-amd64 file.
>> Yeah, and amd64 can't be added to sid till it has build-essential and
>> it can't have build-essential till it is in sid and it can't be in sid
>> till it has build-essential.....
> Who said that?  Let me know and I'll go and apply appropriate percussive
> force to them.  build-essential is *not* a policy package, it simply
> documents the current state of the archive.

It is used to setup a buildd chroot for a buildd and having a buildd
was said to be required for sid inclusion. Through that a
build-essential package is required for sid inclusion. It is also
important to users and developers to be able to "apt-get install
build-essential" so uploads, backports and especially security fixes
can be made.

The list of package inside build-essential is irelevant for this, all
that is needed is to _have_ the package. That is all I ever cared for
(in case that was unclear).

> Scott
> -- 
> Have you ever, ever felt like this?
> Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?


Reply to: