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

Bug#999430: marked as done (buster-pu: package publicsuffix/20211109.1735-0+deb10u1)

Your message dated Wed, 24 Aug 2022 19:01:23 +0100
with message-id <2d0b0483f3fd824741f9130d9911ad399e52521a.camel@adam-barratt.org.uk>
and subject line Re: Bug#999430: buster-pu: package publicsuffix/20211109.1735-0+deb10u1
has caused the Debian Bug report #999430,
regarding buster-pu: package publicsuffix/20211109.1735-0+deb10u1
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.)


-- 
999430: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=999430
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
X-Debbugs-Cc: dkg@fifthhorseman.net
Control: affects -1 src:publicsuffix

Please consider an update to publicsuffix in debian buster.

This package reflects the state of the network, and keeping it current
is useful for all the packages that depend on it.

The debdiff from the previous version in buster is attached.

This proposed release is also available at the
"publicsuffix_debian/20211109.1735-0+deb10u1" tag on the "debian/buster" branch at
the git repo for publicsuffix packaging:

    https://salsa.debian.org/debian/publicsuffix

Please followup on this ticket to confirm whether I should upload this
revision to buster.

Attachment: publicsuffix_20190925.1705-0+deb10u1_20211109.1735-0+deb10u1.debdiff.gz
Description: application/gzip


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 10.12

On Wed, 2022-08-24 at 13:39 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Fri 2022-08-05 20:36:24 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-11-29 at 20:45 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > Control: tags -1 + confirmed
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2021-11-10 at 16:31 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > > > Please consider an update to publicsuffix in debian buster.
> > > > 
> > > > This package reflects the state of the network, and keeping it
> > > > current is useful for all the packages that depend on it.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Please go ahead.
> > 
> > Ping? We're in the process of organising the final point release
> > for
> > buster, as support for it transitions over to the LTS team, so if
> > you
> > would still like to fix it via pu then the upload needs to happen
> > soon.
> 
> Sorry, I'm a bit confused by this.  afaict, #999430 refers to a
> version
> of publicsuffix that is already shipping in buster,
> 20211109.1735-0+deb10u1:
> 
> 0 dkg@alice:~$ rmadison publicsuffix -s buster
> publicsuffix | 20211109.1735-0+deb10u1 | oldstable  | source, all
> 0 dkg@alice:~$ 
> 

Apparently you're not the only one who's confused. I think I can see
why though - it looks like there were two simultaneous requests for
publicsuffix updates in buster open at the same time, and I closed the
wrong one at the time back in March - namely #1001280.

Apparently neither of us noticed at the time.

> So i think this can be closed.  On the basis that
> https://www.debian.org/News/2022/ doesn't show any recent final point
> release for buster, i'll go ahead and open a new request for the
> latest
> publicsuffix as an update, though.
> 

That sounds like the best approach. The final point release is
approaching, with the plan being to close uploads this coming weekend.

> Thanks for handling the debian point releases!  I know they're
> complicated to coordinate.
> 
> fwiw, i'm handling the generation of publicsuffix point releases in
> an
> automated way these days, so that they should only ever include
> updates
> of this central file.  If there's any way to get a blanket OK for
> upload
> of this type of narrowly-targeted update, it would help me in
> maintenance to not have to wait for a response and followup after the
> debdiff, at which point the update might no longer be the latest
> version.  I understand the cost of making exceptions, though, so if
> that
> doesn't work for you, i will continue as i have been.
> 

On the whole I think assuming that the request will be ACKed makes
sense for updates that just touch the public suffix list. It would be
helpful if you could still file the p-u bug for tracking purposes.

Regards,

Adam

--- End Message ---
Reply to: