|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > August 2004 > No libtiff transition for sarge
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 |
No libtiff transition for sarge
|
|
| Adrian Bunk 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| Just a note from an outsider in case someone hasn't already noted the
obvious:
Unless the release managers drop their current release plan and revert
the base freeze, the libtiff transition can't get into sarge [1].
This means that fixes for packages depending directly or indirectly on
libtiff (e.g. via depending on libgtk2.0-0) that aren't already in
testing have to go through testing-proposed-updates.
It's therefore also impossible for packages like Gimp 2 or XEmacs to be
included in Debian 3.1 [4].
cu
Adrian
BTW: Which member of the release management team is working on checking
all 41 frozen packages where more recent versions are in unstable
whether sarge lacks fixes for RC bugs (e.g. #237071)?
BTW2: Please Cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed to debian-devel.
[1] OK, you could upload half of GNOME recompiled against an older
libgpg-error0 and other packages recompiled against older versions
of e.g. slang1 to testing-proposed-updates [2], but that definitely
takes more time than dropping the current freeze.
[2] Additionally, gnutls11 would have to be unfrozen and recompiled
with the internal libtasn1 [3].
[3] I'm not pretending I've found all things that would have to be done
in order to do the libtiff transition without unfreezing base - but
I'm too lame to check the complete 1.1 MB update_excuses for other
issues.
[4] OK, you could add them via testing-proposed-updates - but if such
changes are allow through testing-proposed-updates, you could upload
really everything to testing-proposed-updates.
--
"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
| |
| Bastian Blank 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:18:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Unless the release managers drop their current release plan and revert
> the base freeze, the libtiff transition can't get into sarge [1].
>
> This means that fixes for packages depending directly or indirectly on
> libtiff (e.g. via depending on libgtk2.0-0) that aren't already in
> testing have to go through testing-proposed-updates.
Package: libtiff3g
Priority: optional
Package: libtiff4
Priority: optional
This implies that there is no package with priority standard or higher
which depends against any of the libtiff versions, so please specify the
problems.
Bastian
--
What kind of love is that? Not to be loved; never to have shown love.
-- Commissioner Nancy Hedford, "Metamorphosis",
stardate 3219.8
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:37:14PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:18:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Package: libtiff3g
> Priority: optional
>
> Package: libtiff4
> Priority: optional
>
> This implies that there is no package with priority standard or higher
> which depends against any of the libtiff versions, so please specify the
> problems.
The problem is that some packages in unstable have after the libtiff4
transition a dependency on a frozen package that can't be fulfilled in
sarge (since this frozen package is not or only in an older version in
sarge).
The most obvious example:
unstable:
Package: gthumb
Version: 3:2.4.1-3
Depends: ..., libgpg-error0 (>= 1.0), ..., libtiff4, ...
Package: libgpg-error0
Version: 1.0-1
sarge:
Package: gthumb
Version: 3:2.3.2-1
Depends: ..., libtiff3g, ...
Package: libgpg-error0
Version: 0.7-3
libgpg-error is frozen.
> Bastian
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
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| On 2004-08-08 Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> Just a note from an outsider in case someone hasn't already noted the
> obvious:
> Unless the release managers drop their current release plan and revert
> the base freeze, the libtiff transition can't get into sarge [1].
Why? Which base packages depend on libtiff?
> This means that fixes for packages depending directly or indirectly on
> libtiff (e.g. via depending on libgtk2.0-0) that aren't already in
> testing have to go through testing-proposed-updates.
No. Only base is frozen. Neither libtiff nor libgtk2.0-0 are in base.
> It's therefore also impossible for packages like Gimp 2 or XEmacs to be
> included in Debian 3.1 [4].
Neither Gimp 2 nor XEmacs are in base.
[...]
> [1] OK, you could upload half of GNOME recompiled against an older
> libgpg-error0
Nicely spotted. Seems like libgpg-error0 somehow missed radar, another
case for tpu, imho.
> and other packages recompiled against older versions
> of e.g. slang1 to testing-proposed-updates [2], but that definitely
> takes more time than dropping the current freeze.
Remind me to shoot the slang maintainer, nothing in the changelogs for
1.4.9dbs-5 and 1.4.9dbs-4 explains why he bumped the shlibs file from
libslang 1-UTF8 slang1a-utf8 (>> 1.4.6-dbs-2)
in 1.4.9dbs-3 to
libslang 1-UTF8 slang1a-utf8 (>> 1.4.9dbs-4)
in 1.4.9dbs-5.
The sourcepackage does not explain this either, afaict there was no
change in the ABI at all.
> [2] Additionally, gnutls11 would have to be unfrozen and recompiled
> with the internal libtasn1 [3].
[...]
gnutls11 is scheduled for special case handling anyway, iirc.
cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>...
> [...]
>
> Nicely spotted. Seems like libgpg-error0 somehow missed radar, another
> case for tpu, imho.
>...
A new upstream version of a frozen package through tpu?
What are you smoking?
> cu andreas
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
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| On 2004-08-08 Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> A new upstream version of a frozen package through tpu?
> What are you smoking?
Some very strong there-is-a-good-reason-for-exceptions-to-any-rule
crack. BTW the changes from 0.7 to 1.0 are _tiny_ as one would
expect/hope for the final 1.0 release.
cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> [...]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Nicely spotted. Seems like libgpg-error0 somehow missed radar, another
> case for tpu, imho.
Why is there a libgpg-error0 package uploaded 5 days ago that has bumped
shlibs when maintainers were specfically told in the release
announcement that the base freeze does NOT mean that unstable is open
for shlibs changes in base/standard?
This looks like a candidate for being reverted immediately, before
packages start getting rebuilt against it.
The following packages will already need to be re-uploaded to remove the
dependency on the incorrect libgpg-error:
gnome-media
gossip
qalculate-gtk
rhythmbox
control-center
epiphany-browser
evolution
gdesklets
gnopernicus
gnotime
gok
libgnome
mlview
nautilus-media
wmbiff
dia
file-roller
gnomeicu
gnubiff
gthumb
libgnomeui
librsvf2
nautilus-cd-burner
quick-lounge-applet
teleport
totem
yelp
zapping
gnome-vfs2
Some of these may qualify for recompile-only NMUs on select
architectures. (gnome-vfs2 is likely to be one of these, since it was
uploaded 9 days ago.)
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Remind me to shoot the slang maintainer, nothing in the changelogs for
> 1.4.9dbs-5 and 1.4.9dbs-4 explains why he bumped the shlibs file from
> libslang 1-UTF8 slang1a-utf8 (>> 1.4.6-dbs-2)
> in 1.4.9dbs-3 to
> libslang 1-UTF8 slang1a-utf8 (>> 1.4.9dbs-4)
> in 1.4.9dbs-5.
> The sourcepackage does not explain this either, afaict there was no
> change in the ABI at all.
I think we'll need to get the maintainer's explanation for this change.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
| |
| Matthias Urlichs 2004-08-08, 5:51 pm |
| Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The following packages will already need to be re-uploaded to remove the
> dependency on the incorrect libgpg-error:
> [ long list ]
Ugly. Perhaps it is less disruptive to let the incorrect libgpg-error
enter testing ..?
--
Matthias Urlichs
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo 2004-08-09, 7:59 am |
| On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
>
> Nicely spotted. Seems like libgpg-error0 somehow missed radar, another
> case for tpu, imho.
Woops! That's was really my fault. I check that there were no internal
need to upgrade shlibs, but I forgot to change shlibs creation.
Anyway, such change should be made, as new interfaces have been added
from 0.7 to 1.0. A package using that should be able to say that he
needs the new version.
Other reason is that libgpg-error was priority optional till this last
upload, when I realised that libgnutls/libcrypt depend on it. Even,
though I have changed it in my sources, bug filled in ftp.d.o is not
yet closed. (see #262938)
And basically, all those GNOME packages depending directly on
libgpg-error0 need to be relibtoolized and reuploaded, with new libtool
>= 1.5.6, and those dependencies will disappear. If someone can
provide me a list, I can see what can be done in this field from GNOME
Team part.
Anyway, I'd like to hear release people about this issue. If a fixed
package must be drop to t-p-u I'll prepare it ASAP. (CC set on
d-release for that)
Cheers,
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
jsogo@debian.org
| |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo 2004-08-09, 7:59 am |
| On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 02:56:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
>
>
> Why is there a libgpg-error0 package uploaded 5 days ago that has bumped
> shlibs when maintainers were specfically told in the release
> announcement that the base freeze does NOT mean that unstable is open
> for shlibs changes in base/standard?
1. Because I didn't want to change shlibs, it was only an error.
2. Because at that moment, though I realized that libgpg-error0 should
be Priority: important, i didn't think about that making it base.
After all my package was Priority: optional from the first upload I
made, and nobody tell me otherwise.
>
> This looks like a candidate for being reverted immediately, before
> packages start getting rebuilt against it.
I can upload a new version with a shlibs stick to older version, or a
package with old version.
>
> The following packages will already need to be re-uploaded to remove the
> dependency on the incorrect libgpg-error:
Most of these packages really need using a new libtool. I think that
no one (or only a few of them) use any interface provided by
libgpg-error
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
jsogo@debian.org
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2004-08-09, 5:56 pm |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <jsogo@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
> Woops! That's was really my fault. I check that there were no internal
> need to upgrade shlibs, but I forgot to change shlibs creation.
> Anyway, such change should be made, as new interfaces have been added
> from 0.7 to 1.0. A package using that should be able to say that he
> needs the new version.
If you have new features shlibs needs to be bumped. To fix this in sid
it looks like you have to upload the old 0.7 version with an epoch or
as 1.0-realy-0.7 and recompile everything against it (assuming nothing
uses the new features yet).
Both is rather ugly.
Uploading t-p-u versions looks cleaner.
(but do what RM says)
> Other reason is that libgpg-error was priority optional till this last
> upload, when I realised that libgnutls/libcrypt depend on it. Even,
> though I have changed it in my sources, bug filled in ftp.d.o is not
> yet closed. (see #262938)
>
> And basically, all those GNOME packages depending directly on
> libgpg-error0 need to be relibtoolized and reuploaded, with new libtool
> provide me a list, I can see what can be done in this field from GNOME
> Team part.
apt-cache rdepends libgpg-error0
> Anyway, I'd like to hear release people about this issue. If a fixed
> package must be drop to t-p-u I'll prepare it ASAP. (CC set on
> d-release for that)
>
> Cheers,
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-08-09, 8:49 pm |
| On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 10:32:52PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Could anyone explain how this could work in practice?
> Since in both cases the version would be higher than the one currently
> in unstable, a package compiled with 1.0 would be allowed to use 0.7 .
> You could add versioned conflicts for current users of libgpg-error0 in
> unstable and update the build dependencies of such packages using
> libgpg-error0.
This works because so far, none of the packages rebuild against
libgpg-error0 *use* libgpg-error0 -- it is a spurious dependency.
Jose is right that the packages which currently are blocked by the new
libgpg-error0 in unstable should be uploaded with a fixed libtool; but
he is wrong if he thinks this excuses introducing such major changes
while we are preparing for a release. Jose, please re-upload
libgpg-error 0.7 with either an epoch or a "1.0-really-0.7" version
as Goswin has suggested. Or, if you don't have time for this, please
indicate which of these you prefer and I'll NMU according to your
wishes.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-08-10, 2:55 am |
| On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:55:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>... Jose, please re-upload
> libgpg-error 0.7 with either an epoch or a "1.0-really-0.7" version
> as Goswin has suggested. Or, if you don't have time for this, please
> indicate which of these you prefer and I'll NMU according to your
> wishes.
How do you ensure that this doesn't cause breakages through wrong
dependencies if someone (a developer or an autobuilder) rebuilds e.g.
gpgme with the "real" libgpg-error 1.0 package installed?
> Steve Langasek
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
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2004-08-10, 7:55 am |
| Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:55:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> How do you ensure that this doesn't cause breakages through wrong
> dependencies if someone (a developer or an autobuilder) rebuilds e.g.
> gpgme with the "real" libgpg-error 1.0 package installed?
Not at all. This only works under the assumption that even if
something is build against the "real" libgpg-error 1.0 package it is
not using any of the new ABI features and is thus still compatible
with 0.7.
>
> cu
> Adrian
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-08-10, 7:55 am |
| On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:52:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:55:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> How do you ensure that this doesn't cause breakages through wrong
> dependencies if someone (a developer or an autobuilder) rebuilds e.g.
> gpgme with the "real" libgpg-error 1.0 package installed?
The chances of this happening are remote; AFAIK, the only packages that
actually *use* libgpg-error are also affected by the base freeze.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-08-10, 7:55 am |
| On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:29:43AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:52:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>
> The chances of this happening are remote; AFAIK, the only packages that
> actually *use* libgpg-error are also affected by the base freeze.
The package gpgme I mentioned as example in the mail your are quoting
isn't affected by the base freeze.
> Steve Langasek
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
| |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo 2004-08-10, 8:51 pm |
| On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:55:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 10:32:52PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>
>
> This works because so far, none of the packages rebuild against
> libgpg-error0 *use* libgpg-error0 -- it is a spurious dependency.
>
> Jose is right that the packages which currently are blocked by the new
> libgpg-error0 in unstable should be uploaded with a fixed libtool; but
> he is wrong if he thinks this excuses introducing such major changes
> while we are preparing for a release.
No, this is not my excuse for the upload. I simply decided to do the
upload two days before realizing that it was base, and when I did the
real upload, changing the priority, I only think that I had my mental
ok for uploading the package (without thinking on the implications for it
being base).
I'm very sorry for all the inconvenience I have caused.
> Jose, please re-upload
> libgpg-error 0.7 with either an epoch or a "1.0-really-0.7" version
> as Goswin has suggested. Or, if you don't have time for this, please
> indicate which of these you prefer and I'll NMU according to your
> wishes.
Ok, I'll upload it tonight, so it's ready for tomorrow katie run.
Cheers,
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
jsogo@debian.org
| |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo 2004-08-10, 8:51 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:34:52AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:29:43AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> The package gpgme I mentioned as example in the mail your are quoting
> isn't affected by the base freeze.
But I maintain also gpgme, and I won't make any new upload unless I
need for some RC bug. I'm sure this time :-)
BTW; please don't CC me. I'm in both debian-devel and debian-release
lists and haven't asked for being CCed. Thank you a lot :-)
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
jsogo@debian.org
| |
| Steve Langasek 2004-08-10, 8:51 pm |
| On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:23:16PM +0200, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 06:55:52PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No, this is not my excuse for the upload. I simply decided to do the
> upload two days before realizing that it was base, and when I did the
> real upload, changing the priority, I only think that I had my mental
> ok for uploading the package (without thinking on the implications for it
> being base).
> I'm very sorry for all the inconvenience I have caused.
These things happen sometimes, and it's clear that this was nothing
deliberate on your part. As always, the important thing now is to fix
the bugs, so thank you for your help with that.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ok, I'll upload it tonight, so it's ready for tomorrow katie run.
Ok. Please note that my patch is incomplete, as it generates ">= 1:0.7"
for the shlibdeps.
There has also been discussion among the release team about whether this
change could be allowed into testing after all, because the changeset is
so small, but a decision hasn't been made yet. I believe reverting the
change is best for now, even though we may still need to change
strategies for sarge.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-08-12, 7:52 am |
| Oh, and another frozen package that blocks several other packages is
cyrus-sasl2.
In the case of cyrus-sasl2 the maintainer is hardly guilty - the last
package was uploaded to unstable three weeks before the first
announcement of the freeze. And it's also not a fault of the maintainer
that the unstable package didn't go into testing because the gcc-3.4
issue wasn't resolved before the start of the freeze.
What action does the release team plan regarding cyrus-sasl2?
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
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2004-08-12, 5:58 pm |
| On 2004-08-12 Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> Oh, and another frozen package that blocks several other packages is
> cyrus-sasl2.
> In the case of cyrus-sasl2 the maintainer is hardly guilty - the last
> package was uploaded to unstable three weeks before the first
> announcement of the freeze. And it's also not a fault of the maintainer
> that the unstable package didn't go into testing because the gcc-3.4
> issue wasn't resolved before the start of the freeze.
I wonder what you are talking about, it cannot be cyrus-sasl2, none of
the facts match.
[2004-08-01] Accepted cyrus-sasl2 2.1.19-1 (i386 source)
[2004-05-21] Accepted cyrus-sasl2 2.1.18-4.1 (hppa source)
(2.1.18-4.1 is in sarge.)
On top of that cyrus-sasl2 is not even frozen.
http://release.debian.org/base-packages.txt
cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-08-12, 5:58 pm |
| On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:53:17PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2004-08-12 Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
>
>
> I wonder what you are talking about, it cannot be cyrus-sasl2, none of
> the facts match.
> [2004-08-01] Accepted cyrus-sasl2 2.1.19-1 (i386 source)
> [2004-05-21] Accepted cyrus-sasl2 2.1.18-4.1 (hppa source)
>
> (2.1.18-4.1 is in sarge.)
Interesting, I only looked at the changelog:
cyrus-sasl2 (2.1.19-1) unstable; urgency=medium
...
-- Dima Barsky <dima@debian.org> Sun, 4 Jul 2004 20:38:53 +0100
> On top of that cyrus-sasl2 is not even frozen.
> http://release.debian.org/base-packages.txt
This list doesn't contain all frozen packages.
cyrus-sasl2 falls under "packages of priority standard and higher" [1]
which are also frozen but not listed.
> cu andreas
cu
Adrian
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-deve...7/msg00016.html
--
"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
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-08-12, 5:58 pm |
| On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 03:53:17PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On top of that cyrus-sasl2 is not even frozen.
> http://release.debian.org/base-packages.txt
You're checking the wrong list. Use:
http://release.debian.org/base-standard-freeze.txt
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Martin Michlmayr 2004-08-12, 5:58 pm |
| * Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> [2004-08-12 18:11]:
>
> You're checking the wrong list. Use:
> http://release.debian.org/base-standard-freeze.txt
This URL was never announced.
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-08-12, 5:58 pm |
| On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:19:14PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> [2004-08-12 18:11]:
>
> This URL was never announced.
It was for internal use. By the time it existed, we assumed that people
would notice that packages were frozen by the fact that, er, they were
frozen. :-) But sure.
The britney code is also publicly available:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_out_code/
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Martin Michlmayr 2004-08-13, 7:51 am |
| * Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> [2004-08-12 23:38]:
> It was for internal use. By the time it existed, we assumed that people
> would notice that packages were frozen by the fact that, er, they were
> frozen. :-) But sure.
Excellent release strategy. Thanks for allowing package maintainers
to plan appropriately.
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Colin Watson 2004-08-13, 5:56 pm |
| On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:48:10PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> [2004-08-12 23:38]:
>
> Excellent release strategy. Thanks for allowing package maintainers
> to plan appropriately.
Thanks for your efforts as project leader to build and improve team
morale.
(More seriously, yeah, we could have handled the base/standard freeze
better, but AJ's departure and the need to sync to a d-i release left us
a bit rushed and disorganized. We'll try to do better next time. At the
same time, I do find it hard to believe that maintainers weren't aware
that we were trying to stabilize and that changes in shlibs files in
packages at the bottom of deep dependency trees would be sources of
delays.)
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|