|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > September 2004 > Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
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 |
Bug#241689: I'm going to NMU this
|
|
| Goswin von Brederlow 2004-08-29, 5:52 pm |
| Hi,
I just noticed Scott James added a Cc to debian-devel so for those not
familiar with the bug (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=241689)
some facts:
1. The bug is a FTBFS bug on amd64
2. The build fails because the file "essential-packages-list-amd64" is
missing (contens doesn't matter, also see compromise below)
3. Other Debian ports already have their files (placeholders except
for hurd-i386):
hurd-i386 darwin-powerpc freebsd-i386 openbsd-i386 darwin-i386
netbsd-i386 s390x sh3eb sh4eb sh3 sh4
4. The bug is 149 days old
5. Adding a placeholder file (also see compromise below) is all that
is needed to fix it but a correct and complete list is in the
bugreport too (as statement that it is identical to i386)
As per
http://www.nl.debian.org/doc/manual...s.en.html#s-nmu
|5.11 Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
|...
|Another reason why NMUs are done is when a Debian developer needs to
|fix another developer's packages in order to address serious security
|problems or crippling bugs, especially during the freeze, or when the
|package maintainer is unable to release a fix in a timely fashion.
I felt an NMU would be justified. The bug is cripling to the amd64
port since everyone wanting to build a package relies on the
build-essential package and the bug wasn't fixed in a timely fashion.
Also note:
|5.10.2.2 When to do a source NMU if you are a porter
|...
|However, if you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above
|guidelines for porting should be followed, with two
|variations. Firstly, the acceptable waiting period -- the time
|between when the bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do
|an NMU - is seven days for porters working on the unstable
|distribution. This period can be shortened if the problem is critical
|and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the
|porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed
|upon guidelines.)
149 days is certainly bigger than 7 days.
Sorry to step on your toes Scott by informing you of my plans to NMU
but build-essential is one of two packages still waiting for an amd64
patch to be added and the other one has a general RC bug and is being
worked on. Please remember that NMUs are not an hostile act.
Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 19:09 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> If you're happy for the file to say that, then that's ok; I agree to
> this compromise.
I never demanded any specific contents for the file. The bug was and
is only that the file is non-existant.
> That wasn't so hard now, was it?
No it wasn't, was it?
May I expect an upload with a placeholder file soon or do you want me
to continue preparing an NMU and getting it uploaded?
> You'd find people a lot more willing to work with you if you offered
> more help and agreed to more compromises than you threaten with NMUs.
>
> Who said that? Let me know and I'll go and apply appropriate percussive
> force to them. build-essential is *not* a policy package, it simply
> documents the current state of the archive.
It is used to setup a buildd chroot for a buildd and having a buildd
was said to be required for sid inclusion. Through that a
build-essential package is required for sid inclusion. It is also
important to users and developers to be able to "apt-get install
build-essential" so uploads, backports and especially security fixes
can be made.
The list of package inside build-essential is irelevant for this, all
that is needed is to _have_ the package. That is all I ever cared for
(in case that was unclear).
> Scott
> --
> Have you ever, ever felt like this?
> Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Andreas Metzler 2004-08-29, 5:52 pm |
| On 2004-08-29 Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
[...]
> 5. Adding a placeholder file (also see compromise below) is all that
> is needed to fix it but a correct and complete list is in the
> bugreport too (as statement that it is identical to i386)
[...]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No it wasn't, was it?
> May I expect an upload with a placeholder file soon or do you want me
> to continue preparing an NMU and getting it uploaded?
[...]
A upload has already happened and should be available now in sid.
(I assume Goswin is already aware of that and the discussion is
only still alive because of e-mail delays. I do hope to cut off this
unfruitful thread here.)
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
| |
| Goswin von Brederlow 2004-09-02, 6:55 pm |
| Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> writes:
> On 2004-08-29 Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
>
>
> [...]
>
> A upload has already happened and should be available now in sid.
>
> (I assume Goswin is already aware of that and the discussion is
> only still alive because of e-mail delays. I do hope to cut off this
> unfruitful thread here.)
> cu andreas
No, until you told me I was unaware of it.
Since I wasn't the bug submitter I didn't get a notification of it
getting closed by the upload.
James Scott, thank you for the swift resolv.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|