Re: New upstream releases for bluefish and docbook-xsl for Etch
Am Sonntag, den 19.11.2006, 04:37 -0800 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:54:21PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > I would like to update bluefish and docbook-xsl with it's latest
> > releases.
> > bluefish: version in Debian is 1.0.6, but 1.0.7 was released soon after
> > we released 1.0.6 to fix a few bugs. It's really just a bug-fix release:
> > [upstream NEWS file]
> > - Updated translations: French, Japanese.
> > - Adds datarootdir to all Makefile.in to avoid warnings with autoconf 2.60
> > - Fixes application/bluefish-project MIME type icon name
> > - Fixes Tcl highlighting
> > - Fixes a bug when trying to save a file with a new install and a file has
> > never been opened or a project is not open. Closes bug #360401.
> > - Fix a bug where Bluefish would crash when deleting multiple bookmarks.
> > - Fix a bookmark memory leak
> > - README: more complete README
> > bluefish itself does not have any important reverse dependency. So any
> > problem with this update?
> Um, gnome-devel is an important reverse-dependency. We can't just drop
> the meta-gnome2 package from etch if bluefish ends up broken, after all.
It's just a bug-fix release (I'm upstream as well) and we do many tests
to ensure, that it will not "completely break".
> By the upstream description, this doesn't sound too bad, but I'm still
> somewhat wary because this isn't a package we can just kick out if it's
This release only fixes a bug, that broke clean bluefish installations
(see the BTS). The rest are only minor bug-fixes, no heavy or minor
code-changes. So I'm pretty sure, that it will not break.
> As long as you're agreeing to stay on top of any bugs that do
> appear and get them fixed in a timely manner, I'm ok with this.
> > docbook-xsl: version in Debian is 1.71.0 and the latest available
> > upstream version is 1.71.1 - also a bug-fix release fixing a bug
> > reported to the Debian BTS and several bugs reported only upstream. But
> > the latter one misses some files in the source tarball and it does not
> > contain the fix for Debian bug
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=310895. So I was
> > talking with Michael Smith, one of the upstream authors and release
> > managers for docbook-xsl and he told me, that he could maybe do a new
> > release after November 20th. This release would be 1.72.0, because some
> > changes were made to the behaviour of docbook-xsl. But IMO and AFAIK it
> > will not break any package/application depending on docbook-xsl. I would
> > really like to include the latest available docbook-xsl into Etch and
> > only include important bug-fixes from upstream CVS, not an older
> > docbook-xsl with massive bug-fixes from upstream CVS - this is always a
> > pain, because upstream is very active and some bug-fixes need a rewrite
> > of parts of the stylesheets. So what is your opinion about this? Am I
> > allowed to include the latest available release into Etch?
> No. An "IMO" is not enough when we're talking about introducing
> incompatibilities in a package as deep in the dependency chain as this one
> is. We've already been dealing with a dozen or so build failures over the
> past few weeks caused by regressions in various TeX-related packages, we
> don't need to add to this with behavior changes in our xsl stack.
Ok. But could I package the bug-fix release 1.71.1 (+ adding the missing
files in the source tarball and the patches to fix the 2 open
(forwarded) Debian bugs and a few newly discovered bugs reported to
upstream)? It's just a bug-fix release for the current version in Debian
Sid/Etch. I followed their SVN changes and I'm sure, it will not break
anything. I just did not already do this, because I was offline with a
broken harddrive. Do I get an ok for this?