Re: Sources vs udeb mismatch in sarge
On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:53:37AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > cdebconf: udeb's are from 0.72, but in sarge is 0.74.
> > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge
>
> I've been sorta planning to accept 0.74, since it's had a lot of testing
> time. It does actually have some UI behavior change, so who knows if
> this will end up confusing people.
Right, not updating it now will get this change at the next point
release, since the source *is* 0.74 in sarge.
> > discover: udeb's are from 2.0.7-2, but in sarge is 2.0.7-2.1
> > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge (no
> > udeb-related changes anyway)
> > evms: udeb's are from 2.5.1-1, sarge has 2.5.2-1
> > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge
> > freetype: udeb's are from 2.1.7-2.3, sarge has 2.1.7-2.4
> > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge
> > glib2.0: udeb's are from 2.4.8-1, sarge has 2.6.4-1
> > Ew... is it safe to have 2.6 udeb's in sarge? I hope so... Reverting
> > sarge to 2.4 is not possible (short of doing an epoch'd upload)
> > hdparm: udeb's are from 5.9-4, sarge has 6.1-1
> > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge
>
> None of these are actually used by the installer, so they all get
> updated to match the debs whenever I or someone else wakes up and does
> it.
Ok, so they are all safe to be updated.
> > glibc: udeb's are from 2.3.2.ds1-20, sarge has 2.3.2.ds1-21
> > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge
> > nano: udeb's are from 1.2.4-3, sarge has 1.2.4-5
> > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge
>
> These and other frozen debs will have their udebs updated as the release
> team accepts new versions.
I didn't understand the release team hints udeb's in, that's something
ftp-master does. The release team hinted in the sources & .deb's, but
the .udeb's remained as they were.
> > And these three packages have newer udeb's in sarge than there are
> > sources for:
> >
> > os-prober: udeb's are from 1.04, sarge has 1.03
> > Suggested resolution: Put 1.04 source package in sarge
>
> If you can tell why my existing hint to do that on newraff failed..
1.4 != 1.04 (typo), plus I seriously doubt this works via a hint because
unstable has 1.05. But the 1.04 sources are in the database, so it can
be done by an ftp team member.
> > zlib: udeb's are from 1:1.2.2-4, sarge has 1:1.2.2-3
> > Suggested resolution: Freeze-exception for 1:1.2.2-4
>
> I forget if d-i actually uses zlib udeb for anything. Given the small
> changes in -4 from -3 and the long time it's sat in unstable I agree
> this is better than a t-p-u upload.
Ok, Steve?
> > e2fsprogs: udeb's are from 1.35-8, but in sarge is 1.35-6
> > Suggested resolution: upload a 1.35-8sarge1 to
> > testing-proposed-updates, which is a version-only change w.r.t.
> > 1.35-8
> > Backup resolution: get 1.35-8 unchanged as it used to be in unstable
> > into sarge (but this is slightly hacky, so not preferred from ftp
> > team perspective)
>
> agreed.
So you agree with the suggested resolution, right? Who will upload that?
I could do it, but I cannot test the udeb's of e2fsprogs, only the
.deb's before upload (although I don't expect problems with an
no-changes upload).
So, in summary: except for cdebconf, you agree with my suggested
resolutions, and Steve will additionally need to confirm the zlib one.
I still suggest to go for my suggested resolution of cdebconf, for the
reasons above.
I'll prepare the necessary commands for ftp-master then, to let those
changes go in effect unless some other objects show up here.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: