Control: tag -1 - wontfix On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:49:55PM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote: > 1) gcl-2.6.12-1 is identical to gcl-2.6.11-6 but for the name change. > The latter was uploaded on 10-23, well in advance of the 10 days needed > before 11-5. I erroneously thought there was time for a name change > only upload to migrate and synchronize with the upstream release. My bad, > but the code has in fact had the time requested in unstable. I've bisected the three versions (yay, snapshot) and this is indeed true. > 2) Concomitant with the above, three gcl dependencies, maxima, axiom, > and hol88, were built with a build-dependency against gcl >= 2.6.11-6, > and successfully migrated into testing. They now have rc bugs filed, > because I misjudged the time needed for a name-change only upload. > Unblocking gcl is the minimal targeted change to clear these bugs, thus > falling under point i. of your unblocking policy. If you would prefer, > I could re-upload 2.6.11-6, but it is exactly the same as what is in > unstable now but for the name. In fact, 2.6.12-1 has had more air time > to expose possible issues. This bit is rather less convenient. > So what do you propose? People are human, and mistakes are made and we > all have a limited amount of time to spend on this volunteer project. > What's best for Debian? May I humbly suggest, unblocking gcl, and > having me do 20 push-ups, is clearly the best way forward :-). Right, I'll do you that deal in the interests of less work doing reversions. However, don't take this as any kind of precedent and please stay on top of debian-devel-announce, particularly around this time of the cycle. Unblocked. -- Jonathan Wiltshire jmw@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature