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

Re: Bug#595444: release.debian.org: unblock shorewall{,6,-lite,6-lite,-init}/4.4.11.4-1



It appears that my below request did not receive any attention as
shorewall migrated today by itself.  I would like to renew my request
for an unblock of shorewall6, shorewall-lite, shorewall6-lite and
shorewall-init.

The changes in these packages are trivial (release notes and version
numbers in some of the scripts), and would help to avert a potential
source of confusion among users.

Regards,

-Roberto

On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 03:46:25PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> reopen 594144
> thanks
> 
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 05:04:52PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep  3, 2010 at 20:13:07 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > 
> > > This new upstream release is specifically targeted for Squeeze.  The
> > > relevant changelog entry is:
> > > 
> > >  shorewall (4.4.11.4-1) unstable; urgency=low
> > >  .
> > >    * New Upstream Version (Closes: #594144)
> > > 
> > That's not a relevant changelog entry.  It would be if 594144 was a
> > request for packaging the new upstream release, and testing wasn't
> > frozen.
> > 
> 
> Well, the relevant entry from the upstream changelog is:
> 
> Fix REQUIRE_INTERFACE=Yes
> 
> Hopefully that is more relevant.
> 
> > shorewall unblocked, the rest of them left alone.
> > 
> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this.  The only changes
> in the rest of the packages are the changes resulting from the change in
> version number.  That is, it is about as invasive as an updated
> translation or updated documentation.
> 
> While technically it is possible to have shorewall6 4.4.11.3-1 installed
> alongside shorewall 4.4.11.4-1, it will likely result in confusion for
> users.  Upstream always releases all the packages as a group, and anyone
> who uses Shorewall outside of Debian will always get them together as a
> group with the same version number.  And it is has also been that way
> with the official Debian packages for quite some time.
> 
> I encourage you to reconsider and permit the rest of the packages into
> testing.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Roberto
> 
> -- 
> Roberto C. Sánchez
> http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
> http://www.connexer.com



-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: