Re: Bug#864745: Update on base.pm jessie point release
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:01:21PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> (2017-07-06):
> > + debian-perl as it possible affects how we deal with FTBFS module
> > packages.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:46:39AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > > Hi Dominic,
> > >
> > > Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> (2017-07-04):
> > > > 1) this commit is identical to those now in upstream release
> > > > candidates.
> > > > 2) This has now been filed as #867164 (sorry that this was missing
> > > > before)
> > >
> > > Thanks for the update, much appreciated.
> > >
> > > I have to say that giving you a green light to update perl in stable
> > > with this kind of fix makes me a little nervous, sorry. :(
> >
> > Okay, it would be useful to know in a bit more detail why you think
> > this, as it doesn't seem any different from other similar fixes to
> > perl we have requested in the past (and we've learnt our lesson from
> > lack of mass rebuild testing where that was an issue previously)
>
> Well, I'm not the one having accepted past proposed-updates, and since
> I've been active on quite a number of {jessie,stretch}-pu requests over
> the past few weeks, that was mainly a hint for other release team
> members that I wasn't going to green or red light this request myself.
>
> > But anyway, there are two options:
> >
> > 1) proceed with the update as proposed. This should be fairly low risk
> > since we have test-rebuilt all packages build-depending on perl and found
> > no regressions, and the problem it is fixing only affected a handful
> > of unusual cases. Given the lack of bug reports, I assume the imperfect
> > base.pm change hasn't actually affected anyone in the real world, but of
> > course that might be a rash assumption.
> >
> > 2) work around the problem by patching away the issue like we have
> > for stretch in the half dozen or so affected packages. This would leave
> > jessie's perl in a slightly awkward state in carrying around for the
> > rest of its days a patch that was rejected by upstream in favour
> > of another one. But in practice it may not make all that difference.
> > And probably the risk in doing this is slightly less in not touching a
> > core package, though it is a bit more work.
> >
> > Overall I'm in favour of 1) but happy to defer to you. Does anyone
> > else in pkg-perl have an opinion on this?
>
> I see a third one:
>
> 0) Wait from someone else from the release team to comment on this.
>
>
> Hope this clarifies.
That makes perfect sense, sorry for the misunderstanding!
Dominic.
Reply to: