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

Bug#691676: marked as done (unblock: ensymble/0.28-3)

Your message dated Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:20:57 +0100
with message-id <20121219192057.GU5634@radis.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#691676: unblock: ensymble/0.28-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #691676,
regarding unblock: ensymble/0.28-3
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.)


-- 
691676: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=691676
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: unblock
X-Debbugs-CC: eddy.petrisor@gmail.com

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:46:43PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:02:10PM +0300, Eddy Petrișor wrote:
> > I realized the previous 0.28-2.1 proposal had UNRELEASED as suite.
> > 
> > I corrected this and attached the patch based on ensymble 0.28-2 to
> > obtain 0.28-2.1.
> > 
> > I would really prefer 0.29-1, but if not, Is this 0.28-2.1 version
> > acceptable for a new upload?
> 
> Dear debian-release,
> 
> Eddy Petrișor has provided updates to my (RFA) package ensymble,
> fixing an important bug (#629125) relating to python compatibility).
> 
> There are two options here:
> 
> - 0.28-3
>   this is a minimal patch fixing #629125

(As Eddy points out this is actually #616799)

> - 0.29-1
>   this is a new upstream release which also fixes #629125 (severity: normal) 
>   based on some work I did a while ago but never managed to upload
> 
> I have reviewed both sets of changes proposed by Eddy and merged them
> into my git repository.
> 
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/dom/ensymble.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/0.28
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/dom/ensymble.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/master
> 
> I attach diffs for both. Note that the one including 0.29 is long because
> upstream has reorganised the directory layout, but the actual changes
> are minimal - see <http://code.google.com/p/ensymble/source/list>.
> I think both are suitable for wheezy.
> 
> Please let me know which one you prefer, and I'll upload it.

In the interests in expedience and taking some workload off the
release team, I have uploaded 0.28-3 (which qualifies for an unblock as
is it is a minimal fix for an important bug in an optional package).

Please unblock:

unblock ensymble/0.28-3

Thanks,
Dominic.

-- 
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 13:40:50 +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:

> In the interests in expedience and taking some workload off the
> release team, I have uploaded 0.28-3 (which qualifies for an unblock as
> is it is a minimal fix for an important bug in an optional package).
> 
Hrm.  I would say this bug counts as wishlist or minor, not important.
python-central isn't going away in wheezy anyway, and changing helpers
doesn't really seem like a freeze-time change IMO.  Sorry.

Cheers,
Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: