Bug#773256: pre-approval: unblock: dpkg/1.17.23

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

On 2014-12-16 06:22, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: unblock
> Control: block -1 by 770627
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I'd like to upload dpkg 1.17.23 with the following changes. I've
> excluded and filtered translation changes. I'm including a patch series
> instead of a debdiff, because it should be clearer and easier to spot
> specific changes you might not want to approve?
> 

Hi,

Thanks, the changes look reasonable.
It
> I'd prefer if 1.17.22 could be unblocked before uploading this, because
> that version is way better than the one currently in testing, and it is
> causing fewer upgrade issues. Otherwise I'll just merge both unblock
> requests.
> 

Apologies, but I am not entirely convinced here.  I would strongly
prefer /not/ having trigger regressions right now.

In fact, I am honestly considering to request having the trigger change
reverted if 1.17.23 does not solve the issues without introduce another
regression.
  We are one and a half month into the freeze and we still do not have a
clean upgrade path on a package level.  I am deeply concerned that we
have been missing out on (e.g.) the systemd upgrade reports because of this.

> I've delayed a bit the request because there are still some packages
> with trigger cycles that have not been uploaded yet, I can start taking
> a look on delayed NMUs and wait for those or upload .23 right away and
> possibly prepare a .24 with those additional versioned Breaks, whichever
> you prefer.
> 

It seems that only gxine and icecc are missing now.  If so, please go
ahead with the .23 with versioned breaks for them as well.  Worst case,
I will have them removed from testing - best case, they will be fixed.
  I will take the political fall-out of this and notify the maintainers
of the affected packages.  Let me know if I missed any packages.

> I've also not added the --force-configure-any default switch, because we
> don't really know what happened with apt and dbus there, and if apt from
> stable is affected or not. Given the recent dpkg, apt, and dbus changes
> I think I'd rather let this as is, and wait in case it shows up again,
> which should give us more information (due to the new apt not eating
> dpkg's output).
> 

Noted, though I sincerely hope it is fixed.  I /might/ be convinced to
accept a .24 for this particular issue.

> Here's the full tentative changelog (with the translation changes
> already in master):
> 
> ,---
> [...]
> `---
> 
> Thanks,
> Guillem
> 

Apologies for the less optimistic view on my end and thanks for your work.


~Niels