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

Bug#922340: marked as done (unblock: open-build-service/2.9.4-1)

Your message dated Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:58:14 +0100
with message-id <b672e66d-1352-04ff-684e-67f291cbbe94@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#922340: unblock: open-build-service/2.9.4-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #922340,
regarding unblock: open-build-service/2.9.4-1
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.)


-- 
922340: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=922340
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

Please unblock package open-build-service

A lot of effort has been put into `open-build-service`, since ruby rails 5 transition needed to happen and it did. Even uploading the package on-time it was delayed due to a couple dependencies: `ruby-clockwork` and `ruby-jquery-ui-rails`.

Please consider an exception and allow `open-build-service` into Buster release.

I am not attaching a debdiff since it is a major upstream version update.

You might check gitlab instead at:
  https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/open-build-service

And its dependencies at:
  https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-clockwork
  https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-jquery-ui-rails

unblock open-build-service/2.9.4-1

-- System Information:
Debian Release: buster/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: armhf

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=ca_AD.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ca_AD.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=ca_AD:ca (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
tags 922340 wontfix
thanks

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 18:04:10 +0000 Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 11:51:45PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> > OK, I tried, and to be honest, stable isn't perfect either, since
> > distro lifecycle is longer than application support, so not allowing
> > newer upstream versions in stable is problematic security wise in the
> > long term. open-build-service is not the only one in this category,
> > there are many packages in the same situation and it'd be nice to find
> > a common solution for all those.
> 
> What is upstream's approach to stable security updates like? How long is a
> stable series maintained? Is it realistic to cherry-pick fixes from new
> upstream releases for buster's lifetime?
> 
> New upstreams in stable aren't a problem in themselves, but when not all
> new upstream releases are suitable (e.g. mixing bug fixes and features) the
> effect can be to block further releases, and make fixing high severity bugs
> harder.

Ok, let's finish this discussion. No unblock, sorry.

Paul

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: