Bug#986149: marked as done (unblock: libgweather/3.36.1-3)
Your message dated Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:35:42 +0000
with message-id <E1lRJDK-00012o-TM@respighi.debian.org>
and subject line unblock libgweather
has caused the Debian Bug report #986149,
regarding unblock: libgweather/3.36.1-3
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.)
--
986149: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=986149
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 libgweather
[ Reason ]
met.no (Norwegian Weather institute) asked libgweather upstream to set
in the User-Agent the application that is actually doing the request to
their service. The version of the library in bullseye do not have the
needed patch
We have backported almost all the functional patches from 3.36.2
already, so an alternative would be to just update to 3.36.2
[ Impact ]
With out that patch met.no could consider that we are not following
their TOS and could block our user to use their service.
[ Tests ]
gnome-weather still shows the weather information.
I didn't test with an application not providing a .desktop file, but the
code seems to take that case into account
[ Risks ]
The code is self contained and at worst the string "null" will be
added the user agent.
[ Checklist ]
[x] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
[x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
[x] attach debdiff against the package in testing
unblock libgweather/3.36.1-3
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Unblocked.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: