Re: Plans for Catalyst in Wheezy
hi,
intrigeri wrote (13 Jul 2012 06:44:04 GMT) :
> libmojomojo-perl [Failed, needs review]
This is a FTBFS that was already known (#680796),
and is thus no regression related to Catalyst 5.90015.
> libcatalyst-view-component-subinclude-perl [Failed, needs review]
This is a FTBFS that was already known (#680843),
and is thus no regression related to Catalyst 5.90015.
(Note that this package looks to be in the archive mostly for the
needs of Gitalist, which is also lagging behind recent Catalyst
releases in Debian, see bellow.)
> libcatalyst-modules-perl [Failed, needs review]
Build cleanly for me. Please try to reproduce and send failure log.
> gitalist-common [Broken by Catalyst >= 5.90013, #681435, RC buggy already]
Nothing new here.
> Patch needed due to Catalyst::Controller::ActionRole merge,
> upstream has been notified, if they don't release we'll patch
> ourselves:
> libcatalyst-controller-actionrole-perl
Jotam, I doubt this one has to be patched in any way for the reason
you gave. Builds fine for me against the latests Catalyst.
Did I miss anything?
> libcatalyst-actionrole-acl-perl
bobtfish released 0.07 that works fine with the latest Catalyst.
Jotam packaged it.
The functional changes are tiny and straight to the point.
So far, so good.
However, that new upstream releases brings many unrelated changes,
including a new M::I etc.
So, it looks like we'll have to ask release team whether they prefer
us to backport the bugfixes for Wheezy, or are fine with unblocking
the new upstream release.
All in all, it looks like libcatalyst-perl 5.90015-1 would not break
anything wrt. 5.90014-1, but would fix #681422, #681423 and #681425.
Here too, we have to ask the release team whether they prefer us to
backport the bugfixes, or are fine with the new upstream release.
Thoughts?
Reply to: