On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 23:04 +0900, Satoru KURASHIKI wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Adam D. Barratt > <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 08:34 +0900, KURASHIKI Satoru wrote: > >> Please unblock package hyperestraier. 1.4.13-2 basically > >> fixes FTBFS bugs introduced in 1.4.13-1. > > > > That's a fairly broad definition of "basically", given this: > > > >> hyperestraier (1.4.13-2) unstable; urgency=low > > [...] > >> * libestraier-ruby-doc: > >> new package. split ruby api documentation. > > > > Introducing new packages during freeze is not particularly helpful; > > tying an RC-bug fix up with it less so still. > > I've recognized this, as it should be introduced in 1.4.13-1, when I > added separate package for supporting ruby 1.9 series. > (to avoid including duplicate documents for them)
You also forgot to mention that -2 is still in NEW right now, which makes reviewing it somewhat difficult. > > As 1.4.13-1 never managed to migrate to testing due to the FTBFS bugs, > > afaics none of the bugs fixed in -2 are regressions from the version > > currently in Squeeze; I'm debating whether we should therefore just > > leave 1.4.9-1.4 in Squeeze. > > Please consider to update 1.4.13, though I know that I couldn't push it > to testing before freeze because of my inmature packaging; > 1.4.9 (released 2006/11) is pretty old, even though for lenny. No users > want to use it. The problem is that before your upload of 1.4.13-1, there hadn't been a hyperestraier upload since 2008, and even that was an NMU; the previous maintainer upload was in 2006. That's usually the sort of package history which would suggest that hyperestraier doesn't belong in a stable release in the first place, not that we should be introducing changes on the magnitude of 180 files changed, 14488 insertions(+), 8011 deletions(-) during a freeze. :-( Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org