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

[Pkg-xfce-devel] Bug#687332: Bug#739460: openscenegraph: diff for NMU version 3.2.0~rc1-5.1

2014-05-18 12:10 GMT+01:00 Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de>:
>> So, can you please remove that change in the NMU, if you want to keep
>> the NMU at all?
> Sure, I've just canceled the NMU.


>From my side, I have no objection that the NMU goes ahead if it
contains only the fix for libav.  I don't know if Alberto has any
objection or plans to fix this himself, so please wait at least until
20th for his reply.

>> Apart from that, the NMU was reopened ~7 days ago without any
>> explanation about the transition until ~5 days ago (Sebastian
>> Ramacher).  It would not have hurt to ask first about the plans to fix
>> the RC bug (which we were already discussing in private and group
>> mailing lists), or give more than 2 days period, specially if you are
>> including more changes than for the RC bug.
> Well, that's exactly what Sebastian did in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=739460#44, without visible
> response.
> So what are your plans regarding #739460?
> FYI, in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=739079#82,
> proposed a timeline that allows 0-days NMUs for bugs like #739460 starting
> from tomorrow.
> Thanks for responding and keeping the bugs with up-to-date information.

As I said above, my only issue is that it does not apply to changes
other than to fix the specific problem of the transition.  We made
several uploads this year, so the package maintainers are active.
Also, I pointed that the reply from Sebastian was less than 5 days
ago, which is not a whole lot of time all things considered (I was
travelling yesterday all day, so could not reply to pending questions
from Alberto, for example).  And I don't have room in my computer to
build OSG at the moment, which is kind of a problem to get this fixed

I understand the desire of getting through the transitions quickly,
and I appreciate your work and others to get things running quickly
and helping maintainers, though.  We didn't object to your NMU to
experimental, and neither I nor probably Alberto are against fixing
the libav issue -- instead, we thank you for it.

About plans.  We were thinking if to continue with the current version
(which is an ~rc1 immediately obsoleted by other changes), or upload a
new version (which maybe has already support for libav10, so would not
need patches).

As things are now, I think that it's better not to upload a new
version to not delay this transition, and just upload a fix for the
libav transition.  I can try to build it in another computer, but if
somebody beats me to it, I will not complain.

Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>

Reply to: