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

any objections to uploading tiff 3.7.1 to unstable?

The tiff packages are not yet frozen, but since they have many reverse
dependencies, including parts KDE, I don't want to do an upload to
unstable without release team approval.

3.7.1 is binary compatible with 3.6.1, the version currently in sid.
A pre-release of 3.7.0 (disguised as 3.7.0) has been in experimental
for a few weeks.  A handful of people have reported success with these
packages, and no one has reported any problems, excepting a bug report
pointing out an incorrect path in the doc-base file.

3.7.0 and 3.7.1 includes a great many fixes over 3.6.1.  In fact, all
reproducible outstanding bugs against the tiff packages of severity
higher than "wishlist" in the debian BTS are known to be fixed in
3.7.1.  There are many other performance fixes and fixes to fax
codecs, among other things.

Given that I have done and continue to do careful testing of these
packages and am responsive to any problems that come up (and now have
a very responsive sponsor helping with uploads) and that 3.7.1 is so
far superior to 3.6.1, I'd like permission to upload 3.7.1 into
unstable in hopes of it making the transition to sarge.

Note that 3.7.0-2, uploaded to experimental, introduced the new binary
package libtiff-opengl which includes one program that was not
previously part of libtiff.  This upload, made 10 days ago, required
modification to the override file, which has not yet happened.
Assuming it takes the usual 3 weeks for this to happen and that I
upload 3.7.1-1 immediately after this at urgency low, we're still
three weeks away from 3.7.1 transitioning to sarge.  Maybe that will
be too late, which would be sad.  I'm resisting the temptation to work
around the override issue by doing something like upload 3.7.1-1
without opengl, waiting for it show up, and then uploading 3.7.1-2
with opengl.  (Maybe I'll discuss this on IRC and get some opinions.)

Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>

Reply to: