On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:17:06AM +0200, José Luis Tallón wrote: > >> Yes, there are many changes in the package, due to the fact that > >> the html documentation was removed and replaced by LaTeX > >> sources... which need latex2html(non-free) to build. I have fixed > >> it by removing the requirement on latex2html and generating just > >> PDF documentation for now. This is *much* better than the old > >> one. > > They may not seem like "that many changes" to you, but they're way > > too much for the release team to reasonably review. > Well, you could certainly ignore the doc changes, and i can refine the > changes so that reviewing got easier (that is, remove all of the code > which does not get into the binary packages from the diff and provide > a "clean", commented changeset). Just tell me and i will produce it if > it will ease your work > (it might even become Policy thereafter ;) ) In practice, ignoring just the doc changes is awkward; the closest one can come is probably to unpack old and new versions and use diff -uNr --exclude doc instead of debdiff, but this may miss functional changes that it shouldn't. > > The release team's time is a finite resource, and it needs to be > > focused on addressing release-critical issues. > Yes, that is clear. And i feel that this discussion is probably taking > up a bit too much of your time (more than i wanted, anyway)... sorry > for that. > A simple, "go ahead, backport the changes and upload a 1.36.2-3 to > testing-proposed-updates" will do... even though i will have to > explain why did Debian ship Bacula-1.36.2 instead to my users :-S > (even if i backport all the changes, it will read '1.36.2') Yes, please backport the RC fixes and upload to testing-proposed-updates. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature