Re: Request for sponsoring upload of probabel-0.4.4
Hi Lennart,
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:13:29AM +0100, L.C. Karssen wrote:
> > (after `cme fix dpkg-control` which bumpes
> > the Standards-Version and does some other polishing - I'd recommend
> > running this command when intending to upload a new package revision.
> >
>
> Thanks for the tip. I've added it to my "publish-to-Debian-med-workflow"
> document :-).
It's also mentioned in our Debian Med team policy ...
> > which was kindly written by some fellow team members. If you *always*
> > use what is written there
> >
> > git import-orig --pristine-tar /path/to/package_version.orig.tar.gz
> >
> > you will most probably never face any trouble with missing pristine-tar.
>
> Indeed, that's what I did. No problems there. I only forgot to push the
> pristine-tar branch (at least I didn't do that explicitly).
Hmm, strange. Usually it should be pushed automatically ...
> > If your local clone
> > is broken you might want to
> >
> > gbp-clone ssh://git.debian.org/git/debian-med/probabel.git
> >
>
> That sounds like a good plan. I'll do that.
In the past I was able to fix some repositories that were broken for
whatever reason this was.
> > You were stating above that 0.4.4 fixes an "important" bug. The
> > category "important" is not release critical. On the other hand you
> > write "rendered one third of the package useless".
>
> ProbABEL contains three regression modules and one of these turned out
> to have broken checks for singularities, resulting in NaNs in the output
> of real-world users (though not in our regular tests, unfortunately).
>
> > You should simply
> > check whether this would fit one of the severities grave, serious or
> > critical[1].
>
> Thank you for the link, I wasn't aware of the exact definitions of the
> severity levels. I've gone through it and to me it seems that either
> 'serious' ("in the package maintainer's (...) opinion, makes the package
> unsuitable for release") or 'grave' ("makes the package unusable or
> mostly so").
>
> > If the new upstream release would fix this *and* *only*
> > *this*
>
> No new features have been added. It fixes this bug and a smaller one in
> an Automake file (sed -i -> sed -i -e) that prevented installation on
> MacOS X and FreeBSD. I'm willing to remove that fix from src/Makefile.am
> if necessary (although it seems a bit silly to me to do so).
In this case it could be a sensible way to fix this in 0.4.3 by a quilt
patch which *only* contains the fix for the problem and no other things.
As far as I can tell this will lead to more easy acceptance by the
release team.
> > I might see some chances that the release team can be convinced.
> > However, it really needs to be an RC bug and no trick to get the latest
> > upstream in.
> >
> > May be you could discuss this with debian-release@lists.debian.org in
> > advance.
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I'll drop them a line and see what they think
> about 'serious', 'grave' or another classification.
You should be prepared for a longis response time since they are quite
busy. I also want to mention that I'm basically away from keyboard from
19.11 to 3.12. I'd recommend to not fiddle around with RC bugs in this
time except some other sponsor in our team has confirmed to upload for
you. Otherwise probabel might get an auto-remove from testing if there
would be a "long standing" RC bug in a leaf package.
> Thanks a lot for all the guidance! I really appreciate the time you
> spend on on making things clear.
You are welcome
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: