Bug#683142: unblock: bdii/5.2.12-1
On 2012-07-31 10:49, Mattias Ellert wrote:
> sön 2012-07-29 klockan 12:46 +0200 skrev Niels Thykier:
>> On 2012-07-29 06:47, Mattias Ellert wrote:
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> Severity: normal
>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>> Usertags: freeze-exception
>>>
>>> unblock bdii/5.2.12-1
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> The bdii package was removed from testing due to an RC bug, together
>>> with the packages that depends on it. The 5.2.12-1 update fixes the RC
>>> bug (bug #663444). I would like to request a freeze exception for this
>>> update to allow the bdii package and the packages depending on it to be
>>> part of the release.
>>>
>>> Mattias
>>>
>>
>> Why did you include a new upstream release in this? It makes it harder
>> for us to review and reduces the chance for you to get the unblock?
>> Does this upstream release have important bug fixes, if so what are they?
>
Hi Mattias,
> I had been preparing an update to a new upstream release for a long time
> before finally making the upload. On several occasions I have completed
> a potential update and then looked at the BTS and thought that I should
> fix that RC bug before doing the upload. Since fixing the RC bug was not
> trivial this always ment that I held off doing the upload. I finally did
> fix the RC bug. The fixed package compared to the last package I
> prepared and did not upload was really just fixing the RC bug.
>
My problem is; this RC bug was reported in March. It receives no
(public) reply from you until you close it with the 5.2.12-1.
While you do have a point that conffile handling is not trivial, the
reporter gave you a link to http://wiki.debian.org/DpkgConffileHandling
to assist you. That page has both the "old school" handling and plenty
of references to the dpkg-maintscript-helper tool. Failing that, an
email to d-mentors could easily have given you the answer within a day.
Sorry, but I do not buy the 4 month delay for fixing this.
> The changes in the package between the previous upload and the new one
> are very minor. It is true that if you list the files changed the list
> is not short, but most of the changed files are in the debian directory.
> These changes are there to do the fix of the RC bug, fix some lintian
> warnings and update the copyright file to the new recommended format.
> The changes to the patches are just dropping the parts of the patches
> that were accepted upstream and rebasing the remaining parts.
>
These changes I get and I can (mostly) ignore. My primary concern is
actually the upstream changes. Admittedly I am not too pleased with the
dh_pysupport -> dh_python...
> For the changes to the upstream itself, i.e. the files outside the
> debian directory. These are mainly changes to the default configuration
> to reduce the memory consumption and to add support for IPv6.
>
Those changes sound nice to have, especially lack of IPv6 is in fact
starting to be a bit sad. The problem here is timing; during the freeze
we have to manually review this stuff.
>> [...]
>
>> I haven't read the full diff, so there are possibly more issues lurking
>> in it. In its current state, I am not inclined to grant an exception.
>>
>> ~Niels
>>
>> PS: urgency=high is no effect when the package is not in testing (in
>> case you weren't aware of it)
>
> I was not aware. However, the package was in testing until 2 days before
> I did the upload. The fact the package was removed made the update very
> urgent - and then the urgency is ignored because it was removed....
> Well... I don't make the rules.
>
Urgency describes how important it is for people to upgrade their
package. If bdii had still been in testing, the urgency would have made
(partly?) sense... Anyway, it is hardly a problem, so just a FYI. :)
> I can make another update using the dpkg-maintscript-helper script
> instead of my own not-so-great fix. If you truly do not want to take
> advantage of the fixes for memory usage and IPv6 support I could also
> upload a version where I backport the fix for the RC bug to the 5.2.5
> version. But I personally think using the new version would be better.
> Let me know what you think is petter.
>
> Mattias
>
Please do not get me wrong; I like improvements as much as every one
else, but I don't like having to manually review them.
I believe the RC bug fix on 5.2.5-2 should be reasonable sane and lets
take that as a starting point.
~Niels
Reply to: