Bug#749560: transition: miniupnpc

[Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>]

On 06/11/2014 11:37 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Bugs open with patches (with help from upstream of MiniUPnPc):
>>
>> 0ad: #751224
>> megaglest: #751225
>> warzone2100: #751229
>>
>> I have checked the build with newer MiniUPnP client, and no issues as
>> far as I can tell.
> 
> Great!

0ad has been uploaded with the fix. But megaglest & warzone2100 haven't.

>>>> And then these seem to have unrelated FTBFS in Sid:
>>>>
>>>> - eiskaltdcpp: FTBFS (in eiskaltdcpp-qt/src/ChatEdit.cpp which doesn't
>>>> have UPNP stuff)
>>>> - litecoin: FTBFS (but package not in Testing anyway)
>>>
>>> Try to reproduce in a clean sid environment and report bugs with severity serious.
>>
>> I have no time to do that right now, will try to do so later on.
> 
> OK. once we know if those fail to build, and if so, once they are fixed or at
> least fixes are available (especially for eiskaltdcpp which is in testing) then
> we should be able to proceed.

litecoin will not move to Testing due to #733180, so I think we can
ignore it.

I tried rebuilding with a clean env (a sid cowbuilder), and eiskaltdcpp
rebuilt fine even with both sid & experimental version of libminiupnpc.

> After miniupnpc hits unstable, the bugs become RC as the packages fail to build,
> and IMHO direct uploads to DELAYED/2 would be fine.

So, I think we're down to only megaglest & warzone2100 to be uploaded
with the patch I provided, everything else seems ok.

So, is the next course of action to upload miniupnpc to Sid now, then
raise the severity of #751225 and #751229 to RC, then upload fixes to
DELAYED/2?

I'm guessing that later, I should request for binNMUs for all reverse
dependencies, right?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)