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

Re: Problem getting uploads accepted due to NEW packages (so version bumps and acl restrictions)



Hi Mattia,

> I think it was me at some point doing them.

Indeed it was :) I was hoping to have to bother you less since I have my
Debian Maintainer status now, but I forgot about the lacking NEW
permissions.

> Also, you can't upload all of them to unstable right now; a practical
> example:
> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/frog/-/commit/716532091844661a43b6efe824c76d809173cf96#58ef006ab62b83b4bec5d81fe5b32c3b4c2d1cc2
> | -              libfolia-dev (>= 1.15),
> | +              libfolia-dev (>= 2.4),
> that new libfolia is not available in unstable, that would mean an
> unbuildable package, therefore an RC bug and all that comes with that
> kind of mess.

Yes, I'm afraid I was a bit too quick (not expecting the rejections), I
did upload them all so there will be build problems now for most of the
packages that did go through and depend on the ones that got rejected.
So I'm hoping to fix this asap so nobody is affected.

>  * upload all the SO bumping targetting experimental

In order to do that, do you want me to change those packages so the debian/changelog targets
experimental instead of unstable?  (should I bump the version suffix -1
to -2 then or can I still reuse -1 as it got rejected? might cause some
issue with the debian/ git tag in salsa though, deleting and forcing a
new tag isn't very elegant)

> You can't say that a transition can be skipped, there will be a
> transition.  What can be skipped is involving the release team if you
> control all the packages that are touched by such transition.

Right

Grazie,

--

Maarten van Gompel
    Language Machines research group
    Centre for Language and Speech Technology
    Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

proycon@anaproy.nl
https://proycon.anaproy.nl
https://github.com/proycon

GnuPG key:  0x39FE11201A31555C
XMPP:       proycon@anaproy.nl       Matrix: @proycon:matrix.org
Telegram:   proycon                  IRC: proycon (freenode)
Discord:    proycon#8272
Mastodon:   https://mastodon.social/@proycon   (@proycon@mastodon.social)
Twitter:    https://twitter.com/proycon
ORCID:      https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1046-0006
Keybase:    https://keybase.io/proycon
Bitcoin:    1BRptZsKQtqRGSZ5qKbX2azbfiygHxJPsd



On 20-04-21 04:00, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:49:18PM +0200, Maarten van Gompel wrote:
> > I gathered all the end-results (*.changes etc) in a big tarball (just for convenience):
> >     https://download.anaproy.nl/debian-packaging.tar
> >
> > It concerns the following packages:
> >     https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libticcutils
> >     https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/libfolia
> >     https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/ucto
> >     https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/mbtserver
> >     https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/frog
> >
> > > Also SO bumps may require a proper transition and binNMUs depending on how many
> > > packages are affected.
> >
> > There are no third-party packages depending on our packages, the
> > only affected dependencies are our own, hence me uploading them all at once; so I
> > think, like last time about a year ago, a transition can be skipped here.
>
> I think it was me at some point doing them.  I can do that again, but my
> recommended process is:
>  * upload all the SO bumping targetting experimental
>  * once NEW is cleared
>  * upload everything to unstable
>
> You can't say that a transition can be skipped, there will be a
> transition.  What can be skipped is involving the release team if you
> control all the packages that are touched by such transition.
>
> Also, you can't upload all of them to unstable right now; a practical
> example:
> https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/frog/-/commit/716532091844661a43b6efe824c76d809173cf96#58ef006ab62b83b4bec5d81fe5b32c3b4c2d1cc2
> | -              libfolia-dev (>= 1.15),
> | +              libfolia-dev (>= 2.4),
> that new libfolia is not available in unstable, that would mean an
> unbuildable package, therefore an RC bug and all that comes with that
> kind of mess.
>
> --
> regards,
>                         Mattia Rizzolo
>
> GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
> More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
> Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
> Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: