[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#767986: marked as done (unblock: opam/1.2.0-1)

Your message dated Mon, 03 Nov 2014 23:18:16 +0000
with message-id <1415056696.5807.12.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Re: unblock: opam/1.2.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #767986,
regarding unblock: opam/1.2.0-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
767986: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=767986
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Hi,

Le 2014-11-03 22:10, Adam D. Barratt a écrit :

On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 10:41 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:

Le 2014-10-25 15:17, Mehdi Dogguy a écrit :

A short time after my upload, upstream released 1.2.0. I expected
1.2.0~rc4 to be close to 1.2.0. It turns out that both are generated
from the same git commit. I can live with 1.2.0~rc4 in Jessie but I
think that it will create some confusion among the users and won't be ideal. Since there are no source changes, updating to 1.2.0 in Jessie 
should be "harmless".

Dear team, would you allow me to upload 1.2.0 to Jessie after
migration
of 1.2.0~rc4?


The question still stands. Additionally to bumping the source version
number, I'd also like to fix #766985 which is minor. I'd like to have a 
rough answer before I upload to know if I can include the little fix
for the mentioned bug.


The Suggests don't really qualify; the Recommends change is arguably
higher severity if the default configuration expects the package to be
present.
I could be persuaded to unblock those changes, but the upload would need 
to happen /soon/ (and have an accompanying unblock bug).



Thanks! I've uploaded it now. It should hit the archive shortly.

Cheers.

--
Mehdi

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 23:01 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Le 2014-11-03 22:10, Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 10:41 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >> Le 2014-10-25 15:17, Mehdi Dogguy a écrit :
> >>> A short time after my upload, upstream released 1.2.0. I expected
> >>> 1.2.0~rc4 to be close to 1.2.0. It turns out that both are generated
> >>> from the same git commit. I can live with 1.2.0~rc4 in Jessie but I
> >>> think that it will create some confusion among the users and won't 
> >>> be
> >>> ideal. Since there are no source changes, updating to 1.2.0 in 
> >>> Jessie
> >>> should be "harmless".
> >>> 
> >>> Dear team, would you allow me to upload 1.2.0 to Jessie after
> >>> migration
> >>> of 1.2.0~rc4?
> >>> 
> >> The question still stands. Additionally to bumping the source version
> >> number, I'd also like to fix #766985 which is minor. I'd like to have 
> >> a
> >> rough answer before I upload to know if I can include the little fix
> >> for the mentioned bug.
> > 
> > The Suggests don't really qualify; the Recommends change is arguably
> > higher severity if the default configuration expects the package to be
> > present.
> > 
> > I could be persuaded to unblock those changes, but the upload would 
> > need
> > to happen /soon/ (and have an accompanying unblock bug).
> > 
> 
> Thanks! I've uploaded it now. It should hit the archive shortly.

Unblocked.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: