Your message dated Thu, 11 May 2023 12:17:25 +0200
with message-id <7f634369-eaff-32ea-d0f8-474d94baf...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1035383: unblock (pre-approval): brial/1.2.11-2.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1035383,
regarding unblock (pre-approval): brial/1.2.11-2.1
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 ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
1035383: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1035383
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
It was discovered about a month ago by Bastian Germann that python3-brial needs
python3-sage, and he added a dependency.
Unfortunately this left the package uninstallable on about half of release
architectures. Normally this would block migration to testing, but elbrus
forced the package in.
I filed a bug 1034443 with grave severity for this based on the following
understanding.
* An uninstallable package is unusable
* The "is this package unusable" criteria is applied to each binary package
individually and for packages that are built seperately for multiple
architectures is applied on each arhictecture individually. Or to put it
another way my understanding the criteria is applied to each "deb"
individually.
I don't think these are explicitly stated anywhere, but they are consistent
with my experiance of how things are typically done in Debian. They are
consistent with the state of testing (other than python3-brial there are no
uninstallable arch-specific binary packages in testing) and they are consistent
with the rules britney normally enforces for testing migration.
Elbrus replied to my bug report, challangeing why I had filed it as rc, I
explained my position and he seemed somewhat but not totally convinced.
I would like to ask for a release team ruling on this bug. If the release agree
it is rc and should be fixed, I am happy to make an upload doing so. On the
other hand if the release team decide that it is not rc and should not be fixed
at this stage in the release process I'm happy to abide by that descision.
The debdiff for my proposed upload can be found at
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=2;bug=1034443;filename=brial.debdiff;msg=40
unblock brial/1.2.11-2.1
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On 02-05-2023 16:11, plugwash wrote:
unblock brial/1.2.11-2.1
done and aged. Thanks.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
