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

Re: Status of the 'debian/patches disaster'?



On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:08:28AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Looking at branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/TODO, it looks like this is a large
> portion of the remaining work to get 4.3.0 into unstable.

It's the only significant part that's under our power.

The other criteria are:

1) the archive admins have to add overrides for the new packages created
   in 4.3.0-0pre1v5, which has been in queue/new since 6 December;
2) I'd *like* to have confirmed-working reports for 4.3.0-0pre1v5 from
   as many of the architectures that are going to release with sarge as
   possible

> But I'm not finding the status list terribly helpful, and I'm not sure it's
> actually up to date.

It's bit behind my own private work, and I do need to update that list.

> I'm especially confused by the ones in the list
> which appear to be present in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches, nearly
> unchanged, such as 910_Xserver_RTFF.diff -- but aren't marked in the list.

That's because 910 has a high numerical prefix, and I hadn't gotten to
it yet.  :)

> Is it reasonable to do the following?
> * Look at a patch in the list.
> * See if it's already present in upstream 4.3.0; if so suggest marking it
> 'upstream'.
> * See if it's superseded by a patch present in
> branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches; if so suggest marking it 'merged' or
> 'unchanged', depending.

Yes, it is quite reasonable, and I greatly welcome mails of this nature.
Please send them to this list.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      The noble soul has reverence for
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      itself.
branden@debian.org                 |      -- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: