Re: Request release of new LSBdev packages for Etch
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 02:36:47PM -0500, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> I would like to ask that the following package updates be approved for
> inclusion in testing/Etch.
> lsb-build-base3_3.1.1-3
> -----------------------
> This fixes #405749 which should be RC, even though I haven't raised the
> priority on it. This new package also picks up a number of smaller, but
> valid fixes from upstream. The issues fixed by these smaller fixes still
> have a reasonable chance of biting someone when they try to use this
> package.
> When viewing the debdiff, there are some non-trivial looking changes in
> some perl scripts. These scripts are not part of the binary packages, and
> are not even used at build time (they are used by the upstream to generate
> many of the file in this package), so I hope they do not become sticking
> points when evaluating this package.
Which bits, precisely, are ignorable as no-ops?
There are quite a few whitespace changes in the headers, which are obviously
no-ops but nevertheless make reviewing the diff awkward.
I could maybe see unblocking this just on the grounds that this is a
standards implementation, and shipping what matches upstream is important
even if it introduces practical regressions for building against...
> lsb-pkgchk3-3.1.1-2
> -------------------
> This is also part of the fix for #405749. The debdiff is very
> straight-froward.
Clear enough, unblocked.
> lsb-appchk3-3.1.1-3
> -------------------
> This is also part of the fix for #405749. This part of the debdiff is
> the same as for lsb-pkgchk3-3.1.1-2. In addition, it contains the fix
> for RC bug #395895 (rpmchk.h) which was in the -2 package that through
> some oversight, never got uploaded.
Also 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: