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

Re: sugar and co


On Sunday 30 November 2008 11:54, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > are all effected by serious bugs which can either be fixed via t-p-u
> > or with new upstream versions via unstable. (Or via removals of the
> > affected packages.)
> Is this the #485233 bug, ie the activity installed in the wrong place?

and it's clones, yes. The fix itself is trivial, quoting 

--begin quote--
> It was a packaging fix to the latest version of the activities in lenny, no
> other changes have been made. I'm not sure how this corresponds to Sugar's
> version scheme.

Ok, so we can easily apply it to the 0.81 packages via t-p-u if the release 
team decides thats the proper route to take. (And whatever route we have to 
take, I'm happy to do prepare the necessary uploads.)

shows the needed fix.


> I would love to see the new sugar packages in lenny too.  I tried
> unsuccessfully to use the lenny packages, but had a hard time getting
> it started (this should be documented on the wiki), and found no
> activities.

Well, we could make the 0.81 packages work, but then Debian would be the only 
distribution shipping this outdated and known buggy release. So, really, I 
would prefer removal or 0.82.

Releaseteam, please have a look at 
http://sugarlabs.org/go/Image:Sucrose-0-82-roadmap.png - which contrary to its 
title also includes 0.81 and which shows that the 0.81 we have in lenny is 
early release of that cycle, while I propose to package 0.82 which is the 
latest stable version in this branch, to which no new changes have been done  
since August.

If you say "0.82 might be an option, please prepare the packages to unstable 
and we will see, but no guaranties", I'll do that (and accept whatever 
outcome then), else I think they should be removed. (I'm still looking for 
someone who would prefer to have 0.81 in lenny, but I assume everybody would 
prefer not to have it in lenny and receive 0.82 via backports.org shortly 
after lenny is released.)

I'm asking as fixing 0.82, which indeed needs to be done anyway, is a bit 
work, and I'm short on time, so I try to priorize.

	Holger, who didnt plan to get involved in sugar packaging that much, but I 
didnt expect the current main maintainer to neglect lenny either...

Attachment: pgpV3ciMKR2FL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: