Re: Permission to upload gnotime to testing-proposed-updates
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 02:46:37PM -0200, Goedson Teixeira Paixao wrote:
> Em Seg, 2007-02-05 às 03:26 -0800, Steve Langasek escreveu:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 04:14:31PM -0200, Goedson Teixeira Paixao wrote:
> > > I've upload gnotime 2.2.2-10 to sid a few days ago with the intention of
> > > getting it into Etch. I've now realised it won't be possible to migrate
> > > it into Etch through Sid because one of its dependencies (libqof1) is a
> > > newer upstream version in Sid. So I'm here asking permission to upload a
> > > rebuild of this revision against Etch libraries into
> > > testing-proposed-updates so that it can be released with Etch.
> > Why is the newer upstream version of libqof1 a problem? There apparently
> > wasn't a shlibs bump, because britney doesn't report libqof1 as a blocker
> > for gnotime in unstable -- which means either there are no ABI changes in
> > that new upstream version, or libqof1 has an unfiled RC bug.
> Looking closer at the issue now, I see it is not a problem. I thought
> the dependency on libqof1 would be versioned, but it is not. So I ask
> you to hint gnotime into Etch.
Ok.
> > Separately, the changes to src/app.c seem pretty large, and I'm not sure I'm
> > comfortable including such an update; it looks to me like a rather large
> > diff for the fix described.
> The large size of the diff is, in part, due to differences in the
> indentation of lines. Attached you'll find a diff file that contains the
> real patch.
> As for you not feeling comfortable introducing such an update, I'd like
> to note that I and some of my co-workers are using this version of the
> code daily since a little before the upload to Sid. So it's already more
> than one month running with no known issues originating from this
> change.
Alright, unblocked.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: