Re: SpatiaLite transition
Hi Andreas,
On 01/07/2014 09:10 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:20:38PM +0100, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>> On 01/06/2014 09:01 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>> I wonder whether it might make sense to ping armhf maintainers about
>>> this.
>>
>> I doubt it will make a difference. I strongly suspect that the armhf
>> buildd admins are well aware of the issues that caused the backlog.
>> Being one of many people informing about the backlog won't make it go
>> any faster, although if everyone has this mentality they may not see the
>> urgency due to the lack of questions/complaints. So it may not hurt to ask.
>
> This exactly is the point. I do not mind how fast it might be processed
> but that a problem might be reported at all (in a polite and patient
> matter this will never harm).
I've just sent an email to armhf@buildd.d.o inquiring about the
experimental Build-Needed queue, with a CC to debian-gis@
>>>> 1) libgaiagraphics (0.5-1) available in experimental
>>>> 2) freexl (1.0.0f-2) available in unstable
>>>> 3) readosm (1.0.0b+dfsg1-2) available in unstable
>>>> 4) spatialite (4.1.1-5) available in experimental [-armhf]
>>>> 5) librasterlite (1.1g-3) available in experimental [-armhf]
>>>> 6) spatialite-tools (4.1.1-2) available in experimental [-armhf]
>>>> 7) spatialite-gui (1.7.1-2) available in experimental [-armhf]
>>>> 8) pyspatialite (3.0.1-4) available in experimental [-armhf]
>>>
>>> Do you consider moving from experimental to unstable?
>>
>> I've requested transition slots from the Release Team for the
>> transition, and I was hoping that they can move the packages from
>> unstable to experimental without the need for new uploads.
>>
>> They can also schedule the BinNMUs of GDAL, Merkaartor, but not QGIS as
>> long as the uninstallability of OpenSceneGraph is not resolved.
>>
>> I'm not in favor of an uncoordinated SpatiaLite transition in unstable.
>> Although it will speed up the process as the GDAL transition shows
>> (which was only partially coordinated).
>
> I admit I have no experience with such transitions at all. Did the
> release team answered your request for the transition? May be they
> consider the issue not big enough to allow some slight flux in unstable
> for a short time frame.
There has been no reply from the Release Team in transition bugs yet.
The bugs in question are:
#731402: libspatialite3 (3.1.0~rc2-2) -> libspatialite5 (4.1.1-4)
#731403: librasterlite1 (1.1~svn11-2) -> librasterlite2 (1.1g-2)
It's only been a month, and the openscenegraph package needs to be
updated first, so I'm not in a hurry to get these packages into unstable.
For Ubuntu Trusty it would be nice to have these packages in unstable so
they can be synced, but I don't think we can get the SpatiaLite
transition done before April.
The UbuntuGIS PPA has spatialite 4.1.0 for some time already, and they
can easily upgrade to spatialite 4.1.1. With the UbuntuGIS developers
providing backports of Debian GIS packages for Ubuntu, I'm not to
worried about their users having another LTS release with spatialite
still at 3.1.0~rc2.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GnuPG: 0xE88D4AF1 (new) / 0x77A975AD (old)
Reply to: