Re: Is upload to stable appropriate?
Kenneth Pronovici wrote:
> I've received a bug report for non-free ncompress:
> The bug deals with a data-corruption problem with the -b9 option. If a
> user compresses a file using -b9, the resulting file is corrupt, and
> this isn't obvious until after the original file has been removed.
> I believe that a fix for this problem would meet the requirements for
> upload to stable ("The package fixes a critical bug which can lead into
> data loss, data corruption..."). However, before I go ahead and upload,
> I wanted to check whether you folks agreed.
> I also have another question. The version in stable is 4.2.4-9.1. I
> have since adopted the package, and the release for this fix will be
> 4.2.4-13. All of my previous releases have incorporated either minor
> bug fixes or minor packaging changes (the relevant changelog entries are
> attached). If you agree that I should upload, should I upload 4.2.4-13,
> or should I make a Woody-specific version of the package including only
> the two-line fix for #220820?
The update for woody should be based on 4.2.4-9.1 and not contain the
changes from 4.2.4-9.1 to 4.2.4-12, naming it 4.2.4-9.2 would be ok,
even if it is not an NMU, or 4.2.4-9.1woody2 or something. The update
for unstable should be named 4.2.4-13 and obviously contain all those
However, since the patch is non-trivial, I'd rather have 4.2.4-13
uploaded for sid-addon for a while before it should replace the file
that comes with woody non-free, hence, not for the r2 update.
Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.