Bug#749560: transition: miniupnpc
Control: tags -1 confirmed
Control: notforwarded -1
(let's use the auto tracker)
On 05/07/14 17:45, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 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.
Yes. Though I don't see a FTBFS bug for it, so hopefully it will build anyway
(so that we don't break it in unstable).
> 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?
Yes please.
> I'm guessing that later, I should request for binNMUs for all reverse
> dependencies, right?
Aye.
Cheers,
Emilio
Reply to: