Hi, On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 09:49:25PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > Control: retitle -1 unblock (pre-approval) or RM: epiphany-browser/3.32.1.2-2 > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 09:42:58 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > > According to upstream, 3.32.0 is not suitable and we should be using > > 3.32.1.2. That version has various post-release fixes, and also restores > > the bundled copy of libdazzle 3.32.x instead of using the system libdazzle > > 3.30.x: upstream say 3.32.x has important fixes for epiphany-browser. > > > > I've prepared a draft package at > > <https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/epiphany-browser/merge_requests/1> > > Now that webkit2gtk 2.24.x is in buster, I've reverted the parts of that > draft package that were only there to relax the dependency on webkit2gtk > to 2.22.x, and uploaded it to experimental. > > Here's a debdiff excluding the translations and the now-bundled copy > of libdazzle: > https://people.debian.org/~smcv/epiphany-browser_3.32.1.2-1_without-libdazzle.diff > > and a separate debdiff between buster's libdazzle and the bundled copy, > in the hope that this is less horrible to review than the whole of the > bundled copy: > https://people.debian.org/~smcv/epiphany-browser_3.32.1.2-1_libdazzle.diff > > An upload to unstable would presumably differ only by a > changelog entry. > > > someone who knows the package better should probably take over at > > this point, so I'm marking the unblock request as moreinfo > > This still stands. I don't use epiphany-browser myself, so if the GNOME > team is intending to release it in buster, I would strongly prefer for > someone else to do the upload to unstable. > > If nobody is willing to do that, then we should remove epiphany-browser > from buster, and possibly reopen #916347 "epiphany-browser: Don't include > in Buster".
Please upload to unstable. As the current version in unstable doesn't even build, it will be better that what is there now. And if we end up removing it, a new version in unstable won't hurt. Note that I'm not tagging this request 'confirmed', becuase I haven't looked at the details to see if an unblock would be appropriate. That can happen later. Thanks, Ivo