Re: advice for syncevolution in squeeze
On Sun, 2010-10-10 at 14:33 -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> I need some advice for how to proceed for syncevolution.
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you about this.
> Around the
> time of the freeze, I asked on the upstream list for any serious issues
> with the debian packages, and not receiving any reports, decided to
> stick with the version in squeeze. However, upstream has since brought
> to my attention
> (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=582376#31) that
> several fairly severe upstream have been fixed in more recent versions.
> I have looked at the first 3 or 4, and they do involve data loss.
>From a quick look through the list, most of them sound worth looking at
and that they should be easily extractable as small targetted fixes.
Some of the GUI changes - for instance, "improved setup of devices",
"styling fix" - don't immediately sound like they'd be appropriate right
> To complicate things further, in the mean time we have made a split into
> 5 binary packages from 2 (one of the 5 being debugging symbols).
> Would either of the following be acceptable for a freeze exception:
> 1) A new upstream release with the new packaging?
> 2) A new upstream release (220.127.116.11) with the old packaging?
> Some of the current packaging would have to be backported in any case
> to keep up with changing build-deps, but obviously I could try to
> minimize the packaging changes.
I'd prefer not to introduce a bunch of new packages at this point, tbh.
My preference would be to see if the fixes for data loss, crashes, etc.
are backportable to the current version in the archive. A quick look
through the git log shows many more commits than I'd imagine correspond
to the fixes mentioned but I obviously don't know the codebase well
enough to tell if a sequence of commits might correspond to a single