[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: scotch and libmesh

On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 17:34 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 17:57 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 12:23:53PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 20:08 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> >>>> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >>>>> Greetings,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am writing to request that scotch 5.0.6-1 (uploaded 7/21) and libmesh
> >>>>> 0.6.2-2 (uploaded 7/25) be included in the Lenny release.  Scotch is in
> >>>>> the NEW queue because this release added shared libraries.  The libmesh
> >>>>> release closes a lot of bugs, and uses the scotch shared libraries, so
> >>>>> it is in Dep-Wait state waiting for the new scotch package.
> >>>> libmesh unblocked, scotch can only be processed once it's accepted in
> >>>> unstable: so no decision on scotch yet. Please poke us again once it has
> >>>> been accepted in unstable.
> >>> *Poke* (Scotch accepted, is in unstable, but marked as frozen on
> >>> bjorn.haxx.se).
> >>  257 files changed, 10405 insertions(+), 5707 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> I'm afraid this is too much to review, so I'm not going to unblock it...
> > 
> > Wow, even though I uploaded it six days before the freeze?  Sorry to
> > hear that.  In my past experience, new version upgrades have taken 3-4
> > days to get through NEW, not two weeks...
> Well, the freeze month was announced in february, not just a couple of 
> weeks before it happened...

In Marc's February message: "Please don't wait with uploads for the last
day before the freeze, thanks," which I didn't do.  (Most of my other
packages were release-ready by early June.)  And I read the message from
Adeodato Simó on July 22 as "Don't panic, if you upload before the
freeze you'll get in".

Sounds like the difference is between "uploaded" and "in unstable" based
on inconsistency between the two messages.  My mistake, but an honest
one.  Today is still not that long after the freeze, is it not
reasonable to have an exception?

> > Why isn't getting through the NEW queue sufficient review?
> Because the NEW queue check is to check if there is nothing wrong 
> regarding FTP Master and legal rules to have the package in the archive 
> (unstable).
> A freeze exception is to get a package from unstable to testing...

Right, but what's the difference in quality standards?  I guess I should
RTFM...  Again, seems a little arbitrary given the upload date.

> > If this decision stands, I'll need to re-upload libmesh to change its
> > scotch dependency in order to fix this.
> Why, do the packages in testing not work?

The new libmesh closes seven bugs, including broken examples, support
for I/O in only one format which requires a non-free visualization
system (GMV, which is not in Debian), and missing links to scotch libs
-- which would require scotch shared libs to fix.  The new scotch closes
three bugs, but one is "new upstream" so that doesn't count, another is
lintian fixes, and the third is shared libs.

So what should I do now?
     1. Do nothing, let all the bugs in testing enter the lenny release
     2. Do nothing, get a freeze exception for the new scotch, which
        would let libmesh go in
     3. Upload scotch 5.0.1.dfsg-1lenny1 (which needs to go through the
        NEW queue, but the changes are much smaller than 5.0.6) and
        libmesh 0.6.2.dfsg-1lenny1 depending on it
     4. Upload libmesh 0.6.2.dfsg-1lenny1 depending on the old scotch
        with only static libs, but closing the other six bugs in libmesh

Which would you accept?

GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: