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

Re: RFS: yajl (updated package)

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 04:29:18 am George Danchev wrote:
> > Dear mentors,
> Hi,
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.0.6+git20090925-1
> > of my package "yajl".
> >
> > It builds these binary packages:
> > libyajl-dev - Yet Another JSON Library - development files
> > libyajl-doc - Yet Another JSON Library - library documentation
> > libyajl1 - Yet Another JSON Library
> > libyajl1-dbg - Yet Another JSON Library - debugging symbols
> > yajl-tools - Yet Another JSON Library - tools
> >
> > The package appears to be lintian clean.
> >
> > The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
> > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yajl
> > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian
> > unstable main contrib non-free - dget
> > 
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/y/yajl/yajl_1.0.6+git200
> >90925-1 .dsc
> >
> > I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me.
> Thanks for your work, but I don't see much of gain to upload a VCS
>  snapshot, which doesn't bring anything more than extending already
>  existing enumeration (yajl_gen.*). I also saw that one of your
>  patches was accepted upstream, but we already have that applied for
>  the package currently found in sid, so that does not make any
>  difference with respect to uploading a new package to sid. There are
>  no any critical bugs nor appealing new features, so I doubt that
>  would worth buildd's time and users installing it as well. So, I
>  think we should wait for 1.0.6 release instead and be fairly
>  conservative, which is a good thing to do with library packages. Is
>  that fine with you?


If it were just a matter of upstream applying one of my patches I'd 
agree, but the upload has a little more than that.

The last version uploaded to Debian was 1.0.5.  This version, 1.0.6, 
fixes how the tools parse options (you can use more than one option at a 
time), json_reformat returns an error on invalid input, and the library 
returns an error if you give it invalid floating point values.

After upstream released 1.0.6, I poked him again about the non-free RFC 
and he removed it.  So the choice was between another dfsg tarball or a 
VCS snapshot of 1.0.6 + 1 commit.  I opted for the snapshot.

Does that justify an upload?

Reply to: