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

Bug#680740: unblock: tahoe-lafs/1.9.2-1


On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 08:37:05PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 20:32:01 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul  8, 2012 at 12:29:44 +0200, bertagaz wrote:
> > 
> > > unblock tahoe-lafs/1.9.2-1
> > > 
> > > Please unblock package tahoe-lafs
> > > 
> >  145 files changed, 5152 insertions(+), 3138 deletions(-)
> > 
> > :(
> > 
> > excluding docs and tests, it's still
> > 
> >  131 files changed, 4290 insertions(+), 2705 deletions(-)
> > 
> actually I lied (well I messed up my filterdiff), but
>  107 files changed, 2559 insertions(+), 2237 deletions(-)
> is still rather a lot.

Sure can understand it's too much for a review.

However, I'm wondering how you did your diff, cause I don't get the same
result using the 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 sources that actually are in Debian's repo.

The misc/ directory had many changes, but isn't interesting to diff
considering most of it isn't included in Debian's package. So you should
probably -x it too.

There are some junk files in upstream tarball also, resulting from a badly
unapplied diff (search for/exclude *.orig and *.rej). 

One big file has been renamed too (how_to_make_a_tahoe-lafs_release.rst ->
how_to_make_a_tahoe-lafs_release.org), don't think filterdiff is smart
enough to catch that. Tools have their limits...

Another big part of upstream changes were interface cosmetics in the
src/allmydata/web directory.

Dunno what to say, appart that 1.9.1 *is* broken, and it shouldn't be
shipped into wheezy, as it *has been reported* to be so to upstream by
many users.

I believe you don't think micah and I did upload a shitty package
unrelated to what is in alioth's repo, nor that we didn't track what
upstream did between the releases.

I also hope you don't intend to review all tahoe-lafs's code, it's
quite a complicated piece of software, and it has been a question of some
days late for this release to be included in Wheezy.

I appreciate that upstream's devs take time to follow and participate into
Debian's process by replying to the BTS and giving advices and hints about
changes. I hope they won't feel that their words aren't considered nor
trusted as they should. They also did shorten their release process to be
as close as possible to Debian's freeze.

Please spend some more time digging into it. Hope my follow up is helpful.

Take care.


P.S: I add Zooko back into the loop, as he was participating to this bug
and I'm sure he'll have hints too.

Reply to: