Bug#683683: unblock: openswan/1:2.6.38-1

[René Mayrhofer <rmayr@debian.org>]

Hi Harald and Jonathan,

I agree with going for the backports option so as not to delay the 
freeze period any more than necessary. However, the typical issue with 
openswan will remain in this case: security updates will be more 
difficult to backport to the version currently in wheezy (just judging 
from experience). Although I would prefer the new version to enter 
testing, I understand the caution against such a request.

best regards,
Rene

On 01.01.2013 19:10, Harald Jenny wrote:
> > Hi Harald,
> Hi Jonathan
>
> > Harald Jenny wrote:
> >
> > > I have retitled the bug request to
> > >
> > > unblock: openswan/1:2.6.38-1
> > >
> > > The version is now in unstable and awaits your (hopefully positive)
> > > decision.
> > debdiff attached for reference.  diffstat:
> >
> >   598 files changed, 11061 insertions(+), 5908 deletions(-)
> >
> > Is there some subset of these changes that can bring about the same
> > interoperability improvement?  Any words to calm fears about the
> > chance of regression among these changes?
> Well the unblock request was made some months ago at the beginning of
> the freeze where a new upstream version wouldn't have been such a great
> issue I presume but now at this stage of the freeze I consider it not
> appropriate anymore to do such a migration. For the interop fixes maybe
> they could be backported but openswan upstream is dead and the project
> already got forked so we won't realy get help and testing for this task.
>
> > I am not an expert in this area at all, but I fear that without
> > further information the most likely release team reply is negative.
> I guess so too therefore I'm currently thinking about chancelling the
> unblock request and instead prepare a backport for wheezy-backports ASAP
> - Rene what is your opinion on this matter?
>
> > Hope that helps,
> > Jonathan
> Yes thanks I will wait for Rene's answer and then presumably close this
> request, thanks
>
> Kind regards
> Harald