Bug#821239: jessie-pu: package ledgersmb/1.3.47-1~deb8u1
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 09:10:44 -0400, Robert James Clay wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 06:32:15 PM Jonathan Wiltshire wrote:
> > Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 06:52:45PM -0400, Robert James Clay wrote:
> > > Please accept ledgersmb_1.3.47-1~deb8u1 for the next Jessie point release.
> > > It resolves the issues with the current version of ledgersmb in 'jessie'
> > > (1.3.40-1) of the package failing to complete an install without errors.
> > Could you expand on the details please? The proposed patch is 139K and:
> >
> > 97 files changed, 1286 insertions(+), 623 deletions(-)
> >
> > Quite a lot, and the changelog includes words like "New upstream release"
> > which immediately rings alarm bells.
>
> Admittedly, the upstream changes come to about 70% of the diff but all of
> those changes between LedgerSMB v1.3.40 and v1.3.47 were bug fixes, not feature
> changes (which didn't happen until the now released but not yet uploaded to
> Debian v1.4.x series), and were unrelated to the issues with the package
> installation errors. And of the upstream versions between those two, only
> v1.3.46-1 was uploaded to Debian and that also turned out to have an package
> installation error, albeit not one as serious as with the 1.3.40-1 package.
> The only way I can see to avoid all that is by creating a 1.3.40-2 package for
> jessie-pu, and backporting the packaging changes as necessary but newer
> upstream versions have already been uploaded so such a package version would
> not be able to go through the usual sequence of unstable -> testing -> jessie-
> pu.
>
The usual sequence is *not* unstable -> testing -> jessie-pu. The usual
sequence is to fix the bugs in unstable/testing, and then separately
cherry-pick the fixes that warrant the stable update to the stable
version of the package, so in this case that would mean preparing a
ledgersmb 1.3.40-1+deb8u1 with the fixes you want to see in stable, and
not the unrelated upstream bits.
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: