Re: Uploading new s3ql to testing-proposed-updates
On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 10:18 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 05:25 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On 25.02.2013 02:41, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
> >> I'd like to upload a new version of S3QL to testing-proposed-updates to
> >> fix bug #701350. Unstable already contains a newer upstream release
> >> (1.12), so I cannot upload there.
> >
> > The bug log for #701350 implies that a) it doesn't affect the version of
> > s3ql in wheezy and b) it has yet to be fixed in sid. Is either or both
> > of those implications correct?
>
> Wheezy S3QL and sid S3QL both contain the bug. Currently, the wheezy
> libc seems to incidentally work around the S3QL bug. However, this does
> not happen with newer libc versions, so it may well be a libc bug
> canceling out the S3QL bug. Therefore, with the current wheezy S3QL, any
> change to wheezy's libc puts S3QL users at the risk of data loss.
In that case, please fix the version information:
Found in version s3ql/1.12-1
It also shouldn't be tagged "sid".
> I have not yet uploaded a patched version for sid, because I wasn't sure
> if/how this interacts with getting an update into wheezy. If you'd like
> to see the change in sid first, I'd be happy to upload. But note that
> sid *already* contains a newer S3QL release than wheezy.
Fixing sid first is always appreciated, even where a t-p-u will be
required to fix wheezy (afaict the fix would be essentially the same in
each case); thanks.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: