In data lunedì 24 aprile 2017 22:42:06 CEST, Francesco Poli ha scritto: > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 17:56:19 +0200 Pino Toscano wrote: > > [...] > > In data sabato 22 aprile 2017 17:42:03 CEST, Francesco Poli (wintermute) ha > > scritto: > [...] > > > but having > > > this new upstream version in unstable (or, at least, in > > > experimental) would be highly appreciated anyway! > > > > Upload it in unstable, knowing it would not make it into testing > > anyway, would only make fixing bugs in testing way more complicated > > (since they would require special uploads to testing-proposed-update, > > which has a way smaller surface of testers than unstable). > > I am aware of this: it's exactly the reason why I suggested to at least > use experimental... > > > Uploading it to experimental would be possible. OTOH, since in almost > > every version of poppler the libpoppler library has a bumped SONAME, > > this would require me building and uploading binaries on my own, and > > wait for NEW processing. > > Please excuse my ignorance: wouldn't this be the same processing > required for a hypothetical upload to unstable?
Yes, > I mean: you should be used to this procedure... This does not mean I like it, nor I want to unnecessarly go through it. > > I don't fancy doing this every month or so > > (the current release frequency of poppler), so I do not upload every > > version even in experimental, no matter the state of the release. > > That's fully understandable! If an upload had been made one month ago, > I wouldn't have asked for another upload now! I don't see what would have changed then: the feature you referred to when opening this bug was committed less than a month ago upstream, and 0.54.0 (released few days ago) is the first version providing it. So even if experimental had 0.53.0, it wouldn't be usable for your needs. > But here we are talking about version 0.54.0, while unstable still has > version 0.48.0, uploaded some 6 months ago... Version 0.48.0 was the last version before the freeze, when it was the last possibility for doing a transition. > > So, unless some other software in experimental requires a new version > > (where "requires" means "cannot be even build, not even with few > > features disabled"), I will not upload new versions of poppler until > > I know I can start a transition in unstable (so surely after testing > > will be opened again after the Stretch release). > > > > If Debian had some PPA/Bikeshed system implemented I would use it, > > but until then... > > I am not sure I understand why you would upload to a PPA repository, > but not to experimental. Wouldn't the amount of required work be > similar? Most probably there would not be a NEW queue, which right now is *the* majority of the work needed when uploading a new ABI-breaking version anywhere (usually to experimental, since it would require a transition, so directly to unstable would be a no-no without release-team approval). -- Pino Toscano
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
