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

Bug#926780: unblock gcc-8/8.3.0-7 and updated cross builds



Control: tags -1 moreinfo

Hi doko,

On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:25:23 +0200 Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
> Please unblock gcc-8/8.3.0-7 and updated cross builds.
> 
> This includes upstream backports to around the date of the GCC 9.1 release.
> 
> this includes
> 
> gcc-8/8.3.0-7
> gcc-8-cross/28
> gcc-8-cross-ports/21
> gcc-8-cross-mipsen/2~c3
> 
> please also unblock
> 
> gcc-defaults-ports/1.182
> 
> fixing a dangling doc dir symlink for the x32 cross compilers.

I realize we probably should have responded earlier to this bug, so
sorry for the delay. I guess most of the release team isn't comfortable
with the amount of changes you incorporate without elaborating in detail
in the unblock request. Your changelog entry suggests this is more or
less a new upstream version (which is not in line with the freeze
policy). Why did you upload this during the freeze and why should we
want this in buster? Are all the issues that are fixed upstream of
serious severity (according to BTS definitions)?

Having a newer gcc-8 in unstable is biting us now since several packages
that we want in buster can't migrate. At least personally I have the
feeling that by uploading this, you put us in front of the block, which
isn't a comfortable feeling.

doko, I know you are maintaining quite some key packages, so extra work
is probably not what you are looking for, but neither are we and on top
of that, we don't like turning down unblock request (hence the time it
took to reply, at least that's the reason for me). In this case, and
also for gcc-7 (hence cc of that bug) it would be great if we could
understand from the beginning why you believe why we should except this.
And no, I am not going to find upstream repositories and bug trackers
for all the packages that we get unblock requests for. You'll have to
help us making the judgment.

Paul

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: