Re: Permission to upload libxslt 1.1.19
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 07:21:38PM +0100, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 02:32:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:40:02AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to upload a new upstream version of libxslt, which is only a
> > > bugfix released:
> >
> > > Upstream changelog reads as follows:
> > > - entities within attributes (William Brack)
> > > - Python detection problem (Joseph Sacco)
> > > - in-scope namespace bug (Mike Hommey)
> > > - Result value tree caching bug (William Brack)
> >
> > > All of which, except the python detection problem, have already been
> > > applied to 1.1.18-2 and -3... which means there won't be an shlib bump.
> > > I think it's better to have 1.1.19 in etch than an 1.1.19-looking
> > > 1.1.18 for user understanding.
> >
> > I don't think cosmetics are a particularly compelling reason for an update
> > of a core lib this close to release, especially when the update is /not/
> > wholly cosmetic. What is the "python detection" fix that's included here?
>
> The "python detection" fix is a single line change in configure.in for
> the PYTHON_SITE_PACKAGES variable, which is not even used during build.
> For the rest, they are nasty bugs that cause FTBFSes on other packages
> using xsltproc to generate documentation and may have other
> implications. These bugs are all present in the version currently in
> testing.
> So yes, the difference between 1.1.18-3 in sid and 1.1.19-1 which is
> ready to upload is entirely cosmetic, and the difference between
> 1.1.18-1 in testing and 1.1.18-3 waiting for rubrica to stand aside to
> go in is RC fixes. But if you prefer to release etch with either a
> broken version or a version which number may lead users to believe it's
> broken, well, that's your call...
I'm going to add
http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/libxslt/libxslt/transform.c?r1=1.299&r2=1.300
to 1.1.19-1 to fix #398327 some more. May I upload it now 1.1.18-3
migrated ?
Mike
Reply to: