On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 02:02:47PM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > These changes that you mention, were introduced the 26th of April for > 0.3.1-2, well before the release, without any bug report being > submitted since then. This is what it's already authorised to migrate > in the unblock. As said we don't care. The package was unable to migrate by itself so that exception is void. > The only changes introduced are the ones about architecture, 2 lines, > and the changelog. In the case that I didn't attach the diff > recently, I do it now, as generated by: > > debdiff ../*/sdl-stretch_0.3.1-[23]*.dsc > /tmp/sdl-stretch_-2_to_-3.diff I know that. And I'd have approved exactly that. That's also why I didn't say "no" directly. > If you don't feel comfortable about authorising -2 either, that's > another question. It's been working apparently fine for 3+ months > now, without any bug report (then again it's not much used, so if > people find bugs maybe they're just ignoring it). > > I've been working and spending time with this package with the hope > that the best possible version goes into unstable. It was only built > in i386 arches, which are mostly obsolete in mainstream hardware, > since nobody had bothered to update this package in the past few > Debian releases since 2005 when amd64 was not even an accepted > architecture. > > I think that reversing these changes is not a good idea, for reasons > explained in the changelog and these bugs reports, I won't repeat > myself. So if you prefer to just remove the unblock, or the package > altogether for the next stable, I think that I prefer that solution to > producing a package that will get a FTBFS shortly after stable is > released. I don't see how those ramblings relate to the two lines I objected to. They don't explain them, they just say that "there was no bug report" (yet). *Why* does one need to set "-pipe -Wall", *why* --as-needed (whose prior absence might cause rdepends to rely on linkage to be present), *why* --no-undefined. But then I see now that it hasn't got any rdepends at all. Also I do not see how reverting those changes make that package FTBFS shortly after stable is released. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature