[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 11:18:33PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 23:01:00 +0200, bertagaz@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> Ok, that's good to know.  Though if it's that broken one wonders why it
> took 8 months to get fixed.

I admit I had a burn out and retired from any keyboard activities during
quite some times.

> > 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.
> > 
> You have no idea what junk we see...  (Not sure what alioth's repo has
> to do with this though.)  And my job here is to not trust anybody, so
> don't take it personally :)

Sorry, a bit late here and I'm tired.

> > 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.
> > 
> Well I'm spending my evening on it...

Yeah, I know you spend quite a lot of your time on fixing and reporting bugs
over here, and its a very valuable time, thanks very much for that.

But then please don't spend your night on that particular package. While I
was replying to you, someone raised a bug (#683331) that should probably
be fixed before tahoe-lafs would be included in wheezy. So I'll probably
close this one, and schedule inclusion for Wheezy+1 if possible (cause it
means packaging new python modules, yeepi, glad to learn that *now*)

Sorry for the inconvenience.


Reply to: