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

Bug#680256: marked as done (unblock: liquidsoap/1.0.1-1)

Your message dated Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:54:25 -0500
with message-id <CABWZ6ORdZSyrQP3DB4gNTEq6w5_YyD+s6QF9=7WhozLx10Nw7A@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#680256: unblock: liquidsoap/1.0.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #680256,
regarding unblock: liquidsoap/1.0.1-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
680256: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680256
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: freeze-exception

Please unblock package liquidsoap

Hi Release team!

Our bugfix release of liquidsoap has been caught in the middle of
the freeze.. We had already uploaded ocaml-dtools 0.3.0 and ocaml-flac
0.1.1 when the freeze happened. However, liquidsoap 1.0.0 does not build
against ocaml-dtools 0.3.0

Liquidsoap 1.0.1 is a bugfix release that we have very carefully crafted
to make sure that it would be a backward-compatible stable drop-in
replacement for 1.0.0 users. Therefore, we think it would be fine to 
unblock and migrate to the current testing distribution.

Please let us know what you think and have a good day,
Romain

unblock liquidsoap/1.0.1-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 3.0.0-1-486
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
2012/10/10 Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
> On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 15:10 -0500, Romain Beauxis wrote:
>> 2012/7/16 Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
> [...]
>> > Given that the previous upstream release was eight months ago and the
>> > fact that the freeze would be in June has been known for the past year,
>> > would it not have been possible to have got the new version released /
>> > uploaded earlier?  As it is, we're now in a position where we have to
>> > review all of the changes and decide whether they're okay.
> [...]
>> I understand your concern. It was our initial plan to have a stable
>> release just before the freeze. However, the release itself was
>> delayed in order to make sure that we had properly tested backward
>> compatibility and stability of the new changes, which is why it got
>> stuck in the middle of the actual freeze.
>
> I've been procrastinating about this on and off for some time now. The
> changes still don't really meet the freeze criteria, but given that
> there don't appear to have been any significant issues found and my
> contribution to not getting this resolved earlier, I've decided to go
> with the unblock. Hopefully that'll turn out to be the correct
> decision...

Thanks Adam.

Romain

--- End Message ---
Reply to: