Re: Advice for bug fix
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 06:52:02PM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote:
> with the fix for #410070 in octave2.9-2.9.9-8, an FTBFS error in
> octave2.9-forge was found (#410463). This turned out to be an error in
> the way the unit tests for octave2.9-forge are created at build time.
> Unfortunately, in fixing this bug in octave2.9-forge, we hit another bug
> in Octave2.9 (which was already fixed upstream some time ago), namely
> #411863: one of the unit tests lets Octave use all available memory
> until the OOM killer kicks in. So, we currentyl can't build
> octave2.9-forge with activated unit tests.
> Now, I need your advice:
> We can upload fixed packages for both octave2.9 and octave2.9-forge into
> unstable and later on they are unblocked (the changes are only a few
> lines diff for each bug fix).
> Or we upload only a new package for octave2.9-forge, where the unit
> tests are disabled.
Does that mean the unit tests currently /are/ activated in
octave2.9-forge version 2006.07.09+dfsg1-7? If so, of the two choices I
would rather see octave2.9 fixed so the unit tests can be run; but I don't
understand why you're asking about having fixes for /both/ packages. I
certainly don't understand why you're referencing bug #410463, which is only
reported against the unstable version of octave2.9.
> Octave2.9-2.9.9-8 should enter testing, but I guess Luk mistyped the
> numbers:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/02/msg00287.html
It isn't going to enter anyway right now, because there's an open RC bug;
and knowing that the new version of octave2.9 breaks the builds of the
octave2.9-forge currently in testing, that rather invalidates the rationale
for a freeze exception in the first place, i.e., that it's a non-disruptive
bugfix-only update.
At the very least, octave2.9-forge needs to be fixed and allowed into
testing /first/, before octave2.9 is considered again.
--
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: