Bug#767912: unblock: libghemical/3.0.0-4

[Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org>]

Hi,

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:53:06PM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2014-11-03 14:19, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: unblock
> > 
> > unblock libghemical/3.0.0-4
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > please unblock libghemical, which will also get us ghemical back. The
> > 3.0.0-3 upload would have been in time for the freeze, however, due to
> > s390x being the sole architecture on MPICH for mpi-default, a FTBFS on
> > it was not caught and had to be fixed in -4.
> > 
> > The package is now uptodate on all architectures in unstable.
> > 
> > I have attached the debdiff with respect to the current stable package
> > (3.0.0-2), which is reasonably small in my opinion.
> 
> I am afraid I have to decline your request for unblocking libghemical.
> The package is currently not in testing, therefore the proposed changes
> do not resolve any issues affecting the coming stable release.
> 
> I realise that this may be quite frustrating to you.  However, I cannot
> give you special treatment in this regard without extending the same
> "courtesy" to several others.  I hope you can understand that this is
> very undesirable to us as it would effectively push back the announced
> freeze date.

Well I see.  The really frustrating part is that I could have easily
engineered around the mandated 10-day period by not fixing the RC FTBFS
bug and just get the s390x package removed, waiting till hit hits
testing before the freeze and then fix s390x after the fact.

So basically I was not asking for an unblock, but rather reduction of
the age period from 10 to 5 days for that RC bugfix, but I guess there's
no procedure for that.  I certainly did not expect it to be accepted in
testing after the freeze.

Too bad, I guess we'll just drop ghemical entirely then.


Michael