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

Re: RFC: gThumb upload for Lenny



On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 19:29 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> David Paleino wrote:
> > Hello Luk,
> > 
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:03:22 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > 
> >> David Paleino wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> I guess you should use a version number higher than the one currently in
> >> stable, but please do upload and add an entry on [1].
> > 
> > I did, but I got a REJECT:
> > 
> > Mapping stable-proposed-updates to proposed-updates.
> > Rejected: gthumb-data_2.10.8-1+lenny1_all.deb: old version (3:2.10.8-1) in testing <= new version (3:2.10.8-1+lenny1) targeted at proposed-updates.
> > Rejected: gthumb_2.10.8-1+lenny1_i386.deb: old version (3:2.10.8-1) in testing <= new version (3:2.10.8-1+lenny1) targeted at proposed-updates.
> > Rejected: gthumb_2.10.8-1+lenny1.dsc: old version (3:2.10.8-1) in testing <= new version (3:2.10.8-1+lenny1) targeted at proposed-updates.
> > 
> >>> By the way, should I upload a -2 to sid before going proposed-updates?
> >> Done in the meantime and it's indeed required atm.
> > 
> > Obviously, this means I should wait for gthumb 2.10.10-1 to migrate to
> > Squeeze? Isn't this a bit broken? :)
> 
> Yes, we're thinking of how to be able to change this behaviour without
> introducing any other problems. Though currently it's indeed the case
> that testing needs a higher version than what you want to upload to
> proposed-updates.

Hello Luk,

I suggest that David follows this approach for getting the critical bug
fixed in stable :

1.  file a temporary "serious" bug against gthumb 3:2.10.10-2
    to prevent it from entering testing,
2.  create gthumb 3:2.10.8-2, starting from 3:2.10.8-1,
    with the fix for the critical bug as the only change,
    with urgency=high, built with dependencies already in testing,
    and upload it to testing-proposed-updates,
3.  wait for that package to enter testing,
4.  upload his previously prepared package to stable-proposed-updates.

OK for you ? Or can you suggest a different approach ?

Regards,

Bart Martens



Reply to: