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 releaseHow 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.
Regards, Adam _______________________________________________ pkg-bacula-devel mailing list pkg-bacula-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-bacula-devel
-- with best regards, Alexander Golovko email: alexandro@ankalagon.ru xmpp: alexandro@ankalagon.ru