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

Re: Darcs to unstable? (was Re: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] darcs_2.7.99.1-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)


Am Dienstag, den 03.04.2012, 09:57 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 07:49:04PM +0000, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> > Accepted:
> > […]
> > darcs_2.7.99.1-1_amd64.deb
> >   to main/d/darcs/darcs_2.7.99.1-1_amd64.deb
> I uploaded the new Darcs RC to experimental, but I'm now wondering if we
> shouldn't just put it in unstable directly? I've been using it for a bit
> and it seems pretty stable, and importantly it doesn't FTBFS (or have
> broken filename encoding handling if monkey-patched).
> Upstream aims to have 2.8 out in May, which would be in time for our
> freeze.
> WDYT? Perhaps the rest of you could  give this version a go for a few
> days and if all cats/children remain unharmed then upload to unstable?

first I’d like to see some clarity about the effect of the filename
encoding problems: Do they affect all repos with non-ASCII-Filenames? Or
just repositories with filenames not representable in the current
locale? Depending on the severity, we might want to put a notice into a
NEWS.Debian file, and/or have Darcs warn the user when it comes across a
problematic filename (if it is not doing that already).


Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: