Your message dated Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:43:05 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#855217: unblock: openmpi/2.0.2
has caused the Debian Bug report #855217,
regarding unblock: openmpi/2.0.2
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
855217: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855217
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: [email protected]
Usertags: unblock
Please unblock package openmpi to fix RC bug #848574
Openmpi 2.0.2 was released just as Stretch was being frozen. The package in
testing,
2.0.2~git.20161225 was packaged to get relevant (2.0.2) changes into Stretch,
but unfortuanatelt contained
a significant bug on mips64el release architecture that was not caught before
transition.
debdiff too large to be useful.
unblock openmpi/2.0.2-2
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-1-686-pae (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_IE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_IE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL
set to en_IE.UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 04:29:05PM +0000, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> >> debdiff too large to be useful.
> > Yes, that's the issue:
> >
> > 4391 files changed, 1353847 insertions(+), 423120 deletions(-)
> ...
> > So perhaps you can get a filtered diff, saying what you have excluded (and
> > why),
> > and explain what changes there are in this release and why we should accept
> > it,
> > rather than a targeted fix for #848574?
> >
> I agree about the problem, the trouble is that 2.0.2~git.20161225 turns
> out not to be a good baseline to be working against; it should not be in
> testing, either 2.0.1 or 2.0.2 should be. (It was in the middle of a
> large change; upstream do a lot of commits ; not only were 4391 files
> changed between Dec and now, about the same number of commits were
> involved. (I had believed that 2.0.2 would include a major SOVERSION
> change that in the end wasn't made, and wanted to get a version with
> fixes but no SOVERSION change into stretch).
It looks like we don't have any other option, as the version in testing is
clearly broken. I unblocked it.
> I had picked that git as a 'near release point', expecting it to be
> nearly stable. It wasn't. I have little confidence that if I cherry pick
> just the fix for #848574, that the resulting package would be fit for
> stretch.
> 2.0.2 on the other hand _has_ had extensive testing, (it has one of the
> best test infrastructures around) it just wasn't ready in time for the
> freeze date.
>
> The other alternative is removal, which is less desirable:
> $ apt-cache rdepends libopenmpi2 | wc -l
> 186
> directly.
Let's hope we don't have to resort to this, if it turns out the unblock was
the wrong call...
Cheers,
Ivo
--- End Message ---
