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

Re: proposed resolution to release-critical libtiff3g bugs

>   > I'll have a libtiff4 package ready to upload this weekend, or maybe
>   > tonight.  I'm not a DD, but I'm on the NM queue and have a few people
>   > who have sponsored packages.  Worst case, someone can sponsor an NMU.
>   I'm available for uploading if needed.

I have already prepared the packages and put them on my personal site
along with a detailed explanation of my changes, and I have notified
the tiff package maintainer and two other people: one who has
sponsored uploads for me in the past and who has also contributed
comments to several of the bugs, and the other who contacted the tiff
maintainer about doing an unrelated NMU on the tiff packages.  I'll
forward the message to you off-list.  If I haven't heard anything by
Monday, I'll gratefully take you up on your kind offer.  I'm hoping
the regular tiff maintainer will do the upload (and changing my
package from an NMU to a regular upload).

>   > Once the new tiff package has been uploaded, what are the mechanics of
>   > getting everything else rebuilt?  My inclination would be to report a
>   > "serious" bug against each package . . .
>   As this would constitute a mass bugfiling, you would need to get
>   approval for this on debian-devel first and follow the usual rules on
>   such mass bugreports.

Right, thanks.

>   However, it's best to give maintainers of these packages *immediate*
>   notice of the coming transition, so they can prepare for it even before
>   libtiff4 is in the archive. . . .

Should I send individual mail to each maintainer, or is a post to
debian-devel appropriate given that we're talking about over 130
packages?  I'll probably be away from email until tomorrow afternoon
my time, so I'll do whatever is required sometime tomorrow.  I won't
have trouble determining the maintainers of all the packages if that's
the appropriate route to take.

>   >    Severity: Serious
>   >    Justification: FTBFS
>   >    As a result of an unintended binary interface (ABI) change in
>   >    . . .
>   It looks good to me, but I would change "in order to enter" for "to be
>   included in".  Most of these packages are already in sarge right now, so
>   it should be clear that recompiling is still a must for the release.

Noted, thanks.

>   You should also run this by debian-devel when the time comes for filing
>   bugs.  See Section 7.1.1 of the developer's reference.

Sounds good.

>   I would allow one week after the upload of libtiff4 before starting to
>   NMU packages that depend on it.  The mass bugfiling would perhaps come a
>   couple of days before this.  It is expected that, without permission of
>   the maintainer, you don't NMU for issues that haven't been reported in
>   the BTS; but assuming you contact the maintainers outside the BTS before
>   uploading libtiff, I don't think there needs to be much time between
>   filing and NMUing.
>   As far as who does the NMUing, I would suggest rolling the NMUs into a
>   weekend BSP as part of the sarge preparation.

Great, thanks again for the help!

Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>

Reply to: