Hi Yasuhiro,
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:14:10AM +0900, ARAKI Yasuhiro wrote:
> I hope you to update libosip2 from 2.0.6-2 to 2.2.0+2.2.1pre4-2.
> Because libosip2 ABI has changed at 2.0.6 to 2.2.0.
> Before 2.0.6: libosip2
> After 2.2.0: libosip2-3
> Now "libosip2" is not depended by any other package.
Well, this tells me that we should not ship libosip2 2.0.6 with sarge,
whether or not we decide to allow 2.2.0 in.
> On the other, "libosip2-3" is depended by "siproxd" and "linphone".
> As described in http://packages.qa.debian.org/libo/libosip2.html and
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=libosip2,
> - libosip2_2.0.6-2 is in testing.
> - libosip2-2.2.0+2.2.1pre4-2 is in unstable.
> $ apt-cache showpkg libosip2-3
> Package: libosip2-3
> Versions:
> 2.2.0+2.2.1pre4-2(/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.jp.debian.org_debian_dists_unstable_main_binary-i386_Packages)
> Reverse Depends:
> siproxd,libosip2-3
> linphone-nox,libosip2-3
> linphone,libosip2-3
> libosip2-dev,libosip2-3 2.2.0+2.2.1pre4-2
> liblinphone1,libosip2-3
So the question is, can we justify putting any of the applications back into
sarge as well? (Since it doesn't make much sense to ship a library that's
not being used.) I'm not happy about having to make this decision, for a
number of reasons:
- libosip2-3 was accepted into unstable on March 19
- even though siproxd, its *one* reverse-dependency in testing, was
uploaded on March 23, it remained RC-buggy until April 24, when I
sponsored an upload on behalf of the maintainer (after pestering him on
IRC)
- by which point, a new upstream version of libosip2 had been uploaded,
blocking the progression of the fixed siproxd into testing;
- and three days later, libosip2 was uploaded again, with the only change
being to change the maintainer field, ensuring that neither package
would get in before we froze!
- and all the while, there is apparently no releasable version of siproxd
in testing, according to bug #304691 which reports that both the
unstable and testing versions segfault, which apparently no one bothered
to report even though the package that was in testing at the time was
seven months old!
So I am not very sympathetic to requests that either of these packages be
given freeze exceptions, and I'm also not confident that either package is
being maintained very well right now.
Nevertheless, since when all is said and done the only thing that kept
libosip2 2.2.0 out of sarge was a spurious upload to change the maintainer
field, and siproxd missed the freeze by one day, I'm (provisionally)
approving both to get back into sarge.
As for linphone, that package has been uploaded far too recently to get the
same exception.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature