Your message dated Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:06:10 +0100 with message-id <20101102170610.GH21708@patate.is-a-geek.org> and subject line Re: Bug#592659: freeze exception for deborphan has caused the Debian Bug report #592659, regarding freeze exception for deborphan to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 592659: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=592659 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: freeze exception for deborphan
- From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:04:49 -0700
- Message-id: <20100811200449.27865.57508.reportbug@windlord.stanford.edu>
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: freeze-exception Hello everyone, I hope no one minds me jumping in here. I've been talking to Carsten privately about the debhelper freeze exception and the subsequent discussion, orphaning, and so forth. I think everything went a little too fast based on various assumptions about how other people would react and therefore escalated more than was needed. I'm writing this message with a mediator hat on to see if I can explain what happened and reopen the discussion about where we should go at this point. I'd like to see if we can find a better solution that doesn't result in the package being orphaned and which results in a supported deborphan package in squeeze. Carsten doesn't believe that the current version of deborphan is useful to release with squeeze and has been working for some months on a new version. He's nearly done and thought he had a bit more time, so the freeze caught him flat-footed (I'm sure you've heard this a lot) and disrupted his existing plan for deborphan in squeeze. The new version is a fairly comprehensive change which, among other things, adds support for multiarch so that deborphan would not wrongly detect and remove packages when users upgrade to squeeze+1. Carsten believes this support is mandatory for a releasable deborphan (Bug #592068, which he originally set to serious and which was downgraded by someone else). Unfortunately, this nearly-completed rewrite is not a trivial change and therefore isn't going to be an easily reviewable diff. deborphan was rearchitected in the process to be more maintainable going forward and to make it easier to add the new features. Highlights of the new release are: * Improve detection of orphaned packages: - Add option to detect circular dependencies. - Add option to recursively check for orphans. * UI improvements in the dialog based deborphan frontend orphaner: - Display short description of highlighted package. - Display packages that are orphaned when only Suggests: are ignored, when Suggests: and Recommends: are ignored and when none of these are ignored in different colors to be able to distinguish them. * Multiarch support: - Strip :any dependencies. - Fail and thus prevent bad things from happening if an other dependency containing a colon is found. His intention was to finish and upload this to unstable within the next week or two and do extensive testing to ensure that it was of release quality. All of this work was explicitly targetted at squeeze. There has been a lot of discussion of removing sections for the next release, which would require significant changes again to deborphan. Uploading the new version of deborphan and going through the testing work to ensure that it works properly therefore doesn't seem worth it if the new version has no hope of making it into squeeze. That was the motive behind deciding to orphan it instead of moving on with work that Carsten was concerned could not be considered for the next release. This would definitely be an unusual exception in that the new version is not a minimal change. If there's little or no hope that it would be approved for squeeze, I don't think Carsten feels sufficient motivation to invest the time into finishing it at this point. If there is a good chance that it would be considered for squeeze, I think that would change the situation. The request is, therefore, not for an advance freeze exception (since I know you'll want to look at the package as uploaded), but for an indication of whether such a new release has a reasonable chance of being accepted if it is finished and thoroughly tested quickly. My goal in this is to have a supported deborphan in squeeze, and ideally to maintain the enthusiasm and interest of the existing maintainer. Given that there is a new release almost complete that the maintainer considers supportable and has been working on explicitly targetting squeeze, and given that deborphan is largely a leaf package and unlikely to cause problems for any other package, would the release team be willing to consider an unusual exception and review for this package? I realize that this is outside the bounds of what you would normally grant a release exception for; I think it falls into the more unusual case of: | For packages which missed the freeze only for reasons outside of the | control of the maintainers, we might be generous, but you need to | contact us on your own, and you need to contact us soon. In this case, the freeze timing and the timing of Carsten's work missed each other by an unfortunate two weeks. If this were not a leaf package (and Debian-native, and fairly low-risk for causing problems for any other packages), I would have a hard time arguing that you should consider this, but given the situation, I think this may warrant a special exception. Thank you for your time and consideration!
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>, 592659-done@bugs.debian.org
- Cc: Carsten Hey <carsten@debian.org>, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, Neil McGovern <neilm@debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#592659: freeze exception for deborphan
- From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 18:06:10 +0100
- Message-id: <20101102170610.GH21708@patate.is-a-geek.org>
- In-reply-to: <1285498688.2993.1211.camel@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org>
- References: <20100811200449.27865.57508.reportbug@windlord.stanford.edu> <20100811212150.GH7012@halon.org.uk> <20100812163445.GA31221@foghorn.stateful.de> <20100904183422.GT5918@patate.is-a-geek.org> <20100904195725.GU4569@foghorn.stateful.de> <1285498688.2993.1211.camel@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org>
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:58:08 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 21:57 +0200, Carsten Hey wrote: > > I planned (and still do) to upload the version I want to see in Squeeze > > to experimental and unstable/delayed-3 tomorrow. > > Any news on that? > Still nothing almost two months later, this isn't happening, so closing. Cheers, JulienAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---