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

Re: Requesting freeze exception for snappy 1.0.5-2



Steinar H. Gunderson <sesse@debian.org> (02/07/2012):
> I'm looking to see if it would be possible to get a freeze exception
> for snappy (producing libsnappy1 and libsnappy-dev). testing has had
> 1.0.4-1 for a long time; 1.0.5-1, a new upstream release (containing
> mostly performance improvements) has been in unstable for about three
> months, but has failed to compile on armel due to a bug specific to
> Debian ARM-systems (the only ARM systems I use regularly are Ubuntu
> and Android systems), and no bug was filed for this. Thus, it has not
> transitioned to testing, despite no bugs filed against the package. I
> filed an FTBFS bug, #679964, myself when the DDPO report arrived (just
> after the freeze!), for tracking purposes. 
> 
> The debdiff between 1.0.5-1 and 1.0.5-2 is simple, and I'll be putting
> it upstream as soon as it goes through code review at work. Here it
> is: […]

Thankfully the upstream diff doesn't look too huge and I trust any
regression could be easily tracked down. I've hinted it this way to let
it stay in unstable a bit more than usual:
  age-days 20 snappy/1.0.5-2
  unblock snappy/1.0.5-2

Feel free to fix the hurd FTBFS after it has migrated (please keep it
small so that it doesn't get in our way if your package needs another
update for wheezy).

(FWIW, s/biuld/build/ in debian/rules.)

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: