Re: Freeze exceptions: parmetis, ccc, babel, illuminator; please be considerate to busy developers
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 07:40 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 06:36:07AM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > I'm writing to request freeze exceptions for the following packages:
>
> > * ccc: closes 305897 (which should have been important since it
> > directs users to the wrong website to download the software) and
> > 283636 (i18n of debconf templates).
>
> Approved, since this is a documentation fix (but probably not an important
> fix, since the upstream url can be found by other means and is liable to
> change again in the future).
Thanks.
Actually, a half hour of searching didn't find this URL. Google found
only broken links and outdated versions, and only a search through my
debian-alpha local mail store turned up anything. (The Debian lists
search tool didn't help either.) So this was indeed an important fix.
> > * babel: closes FTBFS bugs on arches where it works and adds a new
> > package; if accepted, I'll upload 0.10.2-2 specifying build only
> > for successful arches (i386, powerpc, sparc).
>
> Er, this package has an open RC bug in unstable.
Right, please read what I wrote: it builds fine on those three arches,
and I'd upload it specifying only those (closing the bug) if accepted.
Its failure to build on others is the fault of kaffe, not this package.
I don't think uploading an architecture-restricted version to unstable
is the right thing to do, since the toolchain is still evolving (it's
supposed to work everywhere). But I don't know if that will change your
mind.
> > * illuminator: 0.9.1 has better dependencies on new petsc and
> > mpich package structure than 0.9.0; 0.9.0 closed important bugs
> > in 0.8.9. An old kernel bug on the sparc buildd prevented --
> > and continues to prevent -- it from building there. If
> > accepted, I'll add options to dh_shlibdeps to work around sparc
> > buildd brokenness.
>
> This is a new upstream version that was uploaded at the beginning of the
> freeze, so I don't see that it would be appropriate to push into sarge at
> this point.
A new upstream with only a small change, whose preparation/testing had
been in the works for months but got rushed by the sudden freeze. The
only reason 0.9.0-1 isn't in sarge is because of a broken sparc buildd;
0.8.9-2 in testing has an important bug in documentation (255908) and a
bloated binary which breaks prelink because of ancient static-linked
mpich code (whose fix took two months to get through the NEW queue).
Should I upload 0.9.0-2.sarge.1 into testing, with a workaround for the
broken sparc buildd?
Cheers,
-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html
Reply to: