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

Re: [pkg-bacula-devel] New versions upload

On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:03:02 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 25.07.2012 08:41, Geert Stappers wrote:
Op 20120724 om 21:35 schreef Alexander Golovko:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:14:10 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 21:10:49 +0400, Alexander Golovko wrote:
}> Upstream position 5.2.x releases as bugfixes, 5.2.7 and 5.2.10 as
}> significant bugfix releases.
>> There is a debdiff between current packages and new 5.2.10, which
>> after fixing all regressions and other bugs can be uploaded:
> We're interested in the source diff, not so much binary.

i use next command for create debdiff:
debdiff --diffstat --exclude bacula.pot --exclude '*.po' \
--exclude configure --exclude ltdl.m4 --exclude fix-binutils-gold-linking.patch --wdiff-source-control bacula_5.2.6+dfsg-2.dsc bacula_5.2.10+dfsg-1.dsc > bacula-dsc-debdiff.txt

    ( haven't checked the debdiff output )

It doesn't sound like you're in a position to comment on its
suitability then?

FWIW from http://www.bacula.org/en/?page=news
  The 5.2.10 version is a significant bug fix release

How many of those fixes fit the acceptance criteria?  This:

including our first cut of AFS support.

certainly doesn't.

In upstream changelog about 70 changes and not all of them has a bug number, but at least 40 of them look like fixes for more or less significant bugs.
A few changes is backports from development branch.
Other changes are translates, build system for other platforms or non-linux specific bugs.

As i can see, only backported changes definetelly don't fit acceptance criteria:
 - Backport new StorageId code
 - New overhaul of xattr code.
 - Add rudimentary support for saving AFS acls.

But it will be very hard to apply all changes, except backported.



pkg-bacula-devel mailing list


with best regards,
Alexander Golovko
email: alexandro@ankalagon.ru
xmpp: alexandro@ankalagon.ru

Reply to: