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

Re: Freeze exception for libjs-jac

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:56:28PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Hi,
> On 29-08-2010 19:51, Marcelo Jorge Vieira wrote:
> > Please unblock libjs-jac, the new version closes #593799.
>  Base version: jsjac_1.3.1-3 from testing
>  Target version: jsjac_1.3.2+dfsg-1 from unstable
>  94 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 27383 deletions(-)
> 	Although the upload closes #593799 it has a new upstream
> version and some major changes, so I'm a little bit hesitant in
> unblock this without a second opinion.
> 	Upstream site http://blog.jwchat.org/download/ says the
> 1.3.2 happened back in 2008, the Package QA shows the package is
> untouched since end 2008.

Sorry for the late response. We have just backported our fixes to the
previous upstream version.

>  * Is it really better to have a new upstream without any
>    tests at this point? Or, can you elaborate a little bit of why
>    it would be important to have a new untested upstream version
>    at this point?

Unfortunately, it was only after packaging this new upstream version in
response to the RC bug that we realized it fixes a bug when interacting
with some other XMPP clients. Best would be that we open it and close
with the new upstream version.

>  * Can you provide a backport to 1.3.1 that would fix the non-free
>    bug?

Right now, we have decided to go that way, since the new upstream
version does some code changes. Although we have tested it under a
deployment of ours, that's not as good as Debian coverage.

It's at http://people.debian.org/~metal/jsjac/.

> Kind regards,
> - -- 
> Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
> Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> iEYEARECAAYFAkx7HdkACgkQCjAO0JDlykbebQCfXVkXncvFNPShIyg2uhQqhqtW
> GFIAmwcrW9cL5kBSqpmQ9o26vKu6nHqj
> =N58Y


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: