|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > April 2004 > XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
XFree86 4.3.0 and testing (was: when will the release release)
|
|
| Branden Robinson 2004-03-27, 3:33 am |
| On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> XFree86 4.3 should be in as soon as it builds and is uploaded on s390.
> There's no other new upstream version IMHO worth actually delaying the
> release for.
XFree86 4.3.0 is now only being help up by weird stuff I don't fully
understand:
Checking xfree86
* trying to update xfree86 from 4.2.1-12.1 to 4.3.0-7 (candidate is
8 days old)
* Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)[1]
Checking sppc
* trying to update sppc from 1.0.1-6 to 1.0.1-8 (candidate is 0 days
old)
* sppc is only 0 days old. It must be 10 days to go in.
* sppc is waiting for xfree86
o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed[2]
Checking tulip
* trying to update tulip from 1.2.5-3 to 1.2.5-4 (candidate is 23
days old)
* tulip is waiting for xfree86
o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)
* Updating tulip makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on
alpha: tulip[3]
If someone who's better at reading these tea leaves can tell me what I
can do to help move this along, please let me know.
[1] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=xfree86
[2] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=sppc
[3] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=tulip
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was
branden@debian.org | assimilated by the Borg.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
| |
| Daniel Stone 2004-03-27, 3:33 am |
| On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:40:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 07:21:10PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
> XFree86 4.3.0 is now only being help up by weird stuff I don't fully
> understand:
>
> Checking xfree86
>
> * trying to update xfree86 from 4.2.1-12.1 to 4.3.0-7 (candidate is
> 8 days old)
> * Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
> alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)[1]
>
> Checking sppc
>
> * trying to update sppc from 1.0.1-6 to 1.0.1-8 (candidate is 0 days
> old)
> * sppc is only 0 days old. It must be 10 days to go in.
> * sppc is waiting for xfree86
> o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
> alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed[2]
>
> Checking tulip
>
> * trying to update tulip from 1.2.5-3 to 1.2.5-4 (candidate is 23
> days old)
> * tulip is waiting for xfree86
> o Updating xfree86 makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on
> alpha: sppc, tulip (recur was tried but failed)
> * Updating tulip makes 1 non-depending packages uninstallable on
> alpha: tulip[3]
>
> If someone who's better at reading these tea leaves can tell me what I
> can do to help move this along, please let me know.
vorlon has hinted the three together, so they should all progress in
just fine. AFAICT, it actually progressed in with this testing run, but
my update_output-fu is ageing.
Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.
--
Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-03-27, 3:34 am |
| On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:40:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> vorlon has hinted the three together, so they should all progress in
> just fine. AFAICT, it actually progressed in with this testing run, but
> my update_output-fu is ageing.
> Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
> because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.
Yes, the sppc upload was impeccably timed. Rather than letting more
packages build up behind xfree86 in the queue for the next 10 days (X is
at the base of 3 of the 4 top blocking issues on
http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/toplist.html), I've hinted sppc for removal
from testing on Sunday; it should make its own way back in 10 days
hence.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-03-27, 9:33 am |
| On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
>...
> Kamion said the only thing holding it up yesterday was an RC bug, which
> I promptly downgraded; if it didn't go in today, I expect that will be
> because of the new sppc upload, making it a transitive problem.
Please don't forget to upgrade the bug again later.
Downgrading RC bugs for getting a package into testing sometimes has the
effect that the then non-RC bug gets forgotten later [1].
cu
Adrian
[1] this is not meant against the xfree86 developers, it should more
be a general rule
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Daniel Stone 2004-03-27, 10:34 am |
| On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 11:42:30PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Please don't forget to upgrade the bug again later.
>
> Downgrading RC bugs for getting a package into testing sometimes has the
> effect that the then non-RC bug gets forgotten later [1].
I downgraded it because it is NOT A VALID RC BUG IN THE FIRST PLACE.
--
Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-03-27, 11:34 am |
| On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:03PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> I downgraded it because it is NOT A VALID RC BUG IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I'd say a bug in a library that causes segfaults in programs is a good
candidate for being RC.
I know that XFree86 with nearly 200 important bugs has other rules for
RC bugs than the rest of Debian, and it's a different question what to
do with such bugs if they are hard to fix, but at a first glance the bug
in question that includes both an analysis of the problem and a patch
seems to be an example of a perfect bug report.
And I have to admit I don't fully understand the, ahem, very descriptive
subject of yor mail that downgraded this bug.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Daniel Stone 2004-03-28, 3:33 am |
| On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> I'd say a bug in a library that causes segfaults in programs is a good
> candidate for being RC.
'important'. It only triggers in a relatively rare situation; virtually
everyone else using the package is fine with it.
> I know that XFree86 with nearly 200 important bugs has other rules for
> RC bugs than the rest of Debian, and it's a different question what to
> do with such bugs if they are hard to fix, but at a first glance the bug
> in question that includes both an analysis of the problem and a patch
> seems to be an example of a perfect bug report.
No, it does not. It just so happens to be so friggin' huge that very few
problems have such an adverse impact as to make the entire library
useless. Once I catch one, I'll let it through.
--
Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
| |
| Branden Robinson 2004-03-29, 3:36 pm |
| On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 06:39:47AM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> I'd say a bug in a library that causes segfaults in programs is a good
> candidate for being RC.
There was little point holding up 4.3.0's progress into sarge because of
it; the exact same bug is present in XFree86 4.2.1, already in sarge.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgr...gi?pkg=libx11-6
--
G. Branden Robinson | The more ridiculous a belief
Debian GNU/Linux | system, the higher the probability
branden@debian.org | of its success.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Wayne R. Bartz
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-04-01, 9:33 pm |
| On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:22:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> There was little point holding up 4.3.0's progress into sarge because of
> it; the exact same bug is present in XFree86 4.2.1, already in sarge.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgr...gi?pkg=libx11-6
I don't disagree with that.
All I'm saying is that suh a bug is IMHO release critical in the sense
"should be fixed before the next stable release".
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Daniel Stone 2004-04-02, 12:33 am |
| On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:50:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 03:22:52PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> I don't disagree with that.
>
> All I'm saying is that suh a bug is IMHO release critical in the sense
> "should be fixed before the next stable release".
Jesus christ, how much time do you want to spend on X? sarge *should*
ship with either xorg, or fd.o's X. sarge *should* ship with a
brand-spanking GNOME. sarge *should* have autoconfiguring X. sarge
*should* have out-of-the-box wireless, LDAP authentication, et al,
support.
It doesn't make *any* of these RC.
important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
am release-managing. However, it is most certainly not RC.
Please don't go around making stupid suggestions like this: you might
give other people ideas.
'REALEASE FASTER! NO NOT LIKE THAT YOU FOOLS,'
Daniel
--
Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
| |
| Chris Cheney 2004-04-02, 1:34 am |
| On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:15PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:50:23AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Jesus christ, how much time do you want to spend on X? sarge *should*
> ship with either xorg, or fd.o's X. sarge *should* ship with a
> brand-spanking GNOME. sarge *should* have autoconfiguring X. sarge
> *should* have out-of-the-box wireless, LDAP authentication, et al,
> support.
>
> It doesn't make *any* of these RC.
BTW - If you have a bug which you believe deserves to be marked RC you
can always just tag it is sarge and sid as well to have it effectively
ignored for migration purposes. As long as the version in sid has less
bugs it will migrate to sarge. I am not going to comment on the
particular case here since I didn't even read the bug report.
Chris
| |
| Branden Robinson 2004-04-02, 2:34 am |
| On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:15PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
> important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
> applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
> am release-managing. However, it is most certainly not RC.
Fabio volunteered as well. Why doesn't he get to make the same
assumption?
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was
branden@debian.org | assimilated by the Borg.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
| |
| Daniel Stone 2004-04-02, 2:34 am |
| On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 01:53:53AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:48:15PM -0800, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Fabio volunteered as well. Why doesn't he get to make the same
> assumption?
I didn't see that; all I saw was 'why is no-one asking to be RM  '.
--
Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
| |
| Anthony Towns 2004-04-02, 3:37 am |
| On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 12:03:03AM -0600, Chris Cheney wrote:
> BTW - If you have a bug which you believe deserves to be marked RC you
> can always just tag it is sarge and sid as well to have it effectively
> ignored for migration purposes.
That's not technically true at the moment, although it'll probably become
true fairly soon.
It's not a particularly good idea though; if you've got an RC bug,
you need to fix it, not find ways to get it ignored.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
| |
| Fabio Massimo Di Nitto 2004-04-02, 4:35 am |
| On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> important, at best. I'm not suggesting that the patch shouldn't be
> applied for 4.3.0-8, which, given Branden's lack of response, I assume I
> am release-managing. However, it is most certainly not RC.
Even if i am silent on the list (as you know i am quit busy during these
days, and if you don't please read -private) lack of response doesn't mean
lack of responsabilities or interest.
Re-reading the bug log and the thread I still cannot understand why you
downgraded the bug in the first place. There is no explanation in the BTS
and the downgrade was done before Branden investigation that would have
let X entering sarge in any case. You might want to excuse if i missed
something but i can't access emails on a daily base but i am sure you can
be so kind to give an explanation.
> Please don't go around making stupid suggestions like this: you might
> give other people ideas.
If you want at act as a release manager, you should in the first place
stop telling people that they are stupid or whatever and start to
cooperate with everyone, even with "clueless" people (this is not meant to
be an attack to Adrian at all, but a general reference to less experienced
users) and give good explanations to your actions wearing the RM hat.
> 'REALEASE FASTER! NO NOT LIKE THAT YOU FOOLS,'
you forgot your caps lock on.
Fabio
--
<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Fabio Massimo Di Nitto 2004-04-02, 5:37 am |
| On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
> I didn't see that; all I saw was 'why is no-one asking to be RM '.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/20...3/msg03703.html
Fabio
--
<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
|
| Daniel Stone 2004-04-02, 10:38 am |
| On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:12:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> Even if i am silent on the list (as you know i am quit busy during these
> days, and if you don't please read -private) lack of response doesn't mean
> lack of responsabilities or interest.
I'll have to flick back through -private; I try to ignore it.
> Re-reading the bug log and the thread I still cannot understand why you
> downgraded the bug in the first place. There is no explanation in the BTS
> and the downgrade was done before Branden investigation that would have
> let X entering sarge in any case. You might want to excuse if i missed
> something but i can't access emails on a daily base but i am sure you can
> be so kind to give an explanation.
I'll need to respond to this (later) in the morning.
>
> If you want at act as a release manager, you should in the first place
> stop telling people that they are stupid or whatever and start to
> cooperate with everyone, even with "clueless" people (this is not meant to
> be an attack to Adrian at all, but a general reference to less experienced
> users) and give good explanations to your actions wearing the RM hat.
I said the suggestion was 'stupid', and I stick by it. I'm perfectly
willing to co-operate with Adrian, but not to the point of yielding to
his every suggestion - I have an opinion on some matters, and I'm not
willing to let everyone trample all over it.
The RM position is all yours if Branden agrees.
>
> you forgot your caps lock on.
I use ctrl:nocaps.
--
Daniel Stone <daniels@debian.org>
Debian: the universal operating system http://www.debian.org
| |
| Branden Robinson 2004-04-02, 4:36 pm |
| On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 11:12:45AM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> Re-reading the bug log and the thread I still cannot understand why you
> downgraded the bug in the first place.
For context, we're talking about #239991.
I would probably have made the same call, given that lost keystrokes are
not what I consider "data loss", even "non-serious data loss".
I could be convinced otherwise by the bug submitter, but it is true that
the justification for downgrading the bug's severity should have been
explicitly called out. Particularly since the bug submitter *did* go to
the trouble of using the Justification: header, which I wish more people
would do.
I think the specific point is largely moot, as there's a patch, and the
fix is on the TODO list.
Whether this fix goes into the next release is a decision for the
XFree86 4.3.0-8 release manager to make. 
But to summarize: yes, when downgrading the severity of any bug, we
should explain why. I'll try to do better on this score myself.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Any man who does not realize that
Debian GNU/Linux | he is half an animal is only half a
branden@debian.org | man.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Thornton Wilder
|
|
|
|
|