Bug#680256: unblock: liquidsoap/1.0.1-1
Hi,
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 18:34 +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Our bugfix release of liquidsoap has been caught in the middle of
> the freeze.. We had already uploaded ocaml-dtools 0.3.0 and ocaml-flac
> 0.1.1 when the freeze happened. However, liquidsoap 1.0.0 does not build
> against ocaml-dtools 0.3.0
That's rather unfortunate and implies that the version of liquidsoap
currently in wheezy is RC-buggy, as we can't rebuild it if required for
security updates or other post-release fixes. How involved would the
changes required for 1.0.0 to be buildable against the new ocaml-dtools
be?
> Liquidsoap 1.0.1 is a bugfix release that we have very carefully crafted
> to make sure that it would be a backward-compatible stable drop-in
> replacement for 1.0.0 users.
The raw diffstat compared to the package that's currently in wheezy is
282 files changed, 3896 insertions(+), 2060 deletions(-)
While that's not the largest we've been requested to review, it is quite
large for a package that wasn't uploaded until after the freeze.
Looking through the upstream changelog, there's quite a lot of things
listed under the "new" heading, which are generally discouraged during a
freeze. Some of the descriptions under "fixes" sound like unblock
material, but I don't know the software well enough to know whether the
others are.
Given that the previous upstream release was eight months ago and the
fact that the freeze would be in June has been known for the past year,
would it not have been possible to have got the new version released /
uploaded earlier? As it is, we're now in a position where we have to
review all of the changes and decide whether they're okay.
> Therefore, we think it would be fine to
> unblock and migrate to the current testing distribution.
I'd be worried if you didn't think so, given that you requested it. :-)
However, at first (and third) glance the overall changes don't obviously
appear to fulfil the published unblock criteria, so this is more of a
request for an exception to those criteria.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: