On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:53:37AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > cdebconf: udeb's are from 0.72, but in sarge is 0.74. > > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge > > I've been sorta planning to accept 0.74, since it's had a lot of testing > time. It does actually have some UI behavior change, so who knows if > this will end up confusing people.
Right, not updating it now will get this change at the next point release, since the source *is* 0.74 in sarge. > > discover: udeb's are from 2.0.7-2, but in sarge is 2.0.7-2.1 > > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge (no > > udeb-related changes anyway) > > evms: udeb's are from 2.5.1-1, sarge has 2.5.2-1 > > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge > > freetype: udeb's are from 2.1.7-2.3, sarge has 2.1.7-2.4 > > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge > > glib2.0: udeb's are from 2.4.8-1, sarge has 2.6.4-1 > > Ew... is it safe to have 2.6 udeb's in sarge? I hope so... Reverting > > sarge to 2.4 is not possible (short of doing an epoch'd upload) > > hdparm: udeb's are from 5.9-4, sarge has 6.1-1 > > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge > > None of these are actually used by the installer, so they all get > updated to match the debs whenever I or someone else wakes up and does > it. Ok, so they are all safe to be updated. > > glibc: udeb's are from 2.3.2.ds1-20, sarge has 2.3.2.ds1-21 > > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge > > nano: udeb's are from 1.2.4-3, sarge has 1.2.4-5 > > Suggested resolution: accept the udeb's from sid into sarge > > These and other frozen debs will have their udebs updated as the release > team accepts new versions. I didn't understand the release team hints udeb's in, that's something ftp-master does. The release team hinted in the sources & .deb's, but the .udeb's remained as they were. > > And these three packages have newer udeb's in sarge than there are > > sources for: > > > > os-prober: udeb's are from 1.04, sarge has 1.03 > > Suggested resolution: Put 1.04 source package in sarge > > If you can tell why my existing hint to do that on newraff failed.. 1.4 != 1.04 (typo), plus I seriously doubt this works via a hint because unstable has 1.05. But the 1.04 sources are in the database, so it can be done by an ftp team member. > > zlib: udeb's are from 1:1.2.2-4, sarge has 1:1.2.2-3 > > Suggested resolution: Freeze-exception for 1:1.2.2-4 > > I forget if d-i actually uses zlib udeb for anything. Given the small > changes in -4 from -3 and the long time it's sat in unstable I agree > this is better than a t-p-u upload. Ok, Steve? > > e2fsprogs: udeb's are from 1.35-8, but in sarge is 1.35-6 > > Suggested resolution: upload a 1.35-8sarge1 to > > testing-proposed-updates, which is a version-only change w.r.t. > > 1.35-8 > > Backup resolution: get 1.35-8 unchanged as it used to be in unstable > > into sarge (but this is slightly hacky, so not preferred from ftp > > team perspective) > > agreed. So you agree with the suggested resolution, right? Who will upload that? I could do it, but I cannot test the udeb's of e2fsprogs, only the .deb's before upload (although I don't expect problems with an no-changes upload). So, in summary: except for cdebconf, you agree with my suggested resolutions, and Steve will additionally need to confirm the zlib one. I still suggest to go for my suggested resolution of cdebconf, for the reasons above. I'll prepare the necessary commands for ftp-master then, to let those changes go in effect unless some other objects show up here. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
