Your message dated Fri, 07 Sep 2012 18:54:54 +0100 with message-id <[email protected]> and subject line Re: Bug#681002: release.debian.org: Freeze exception for libguestfs has caused the Debian Bug report #681002, regarding release.debian.org: Freeze exception for libguestfs 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.) -- 681002: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681002 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Please consider unblocking libguestfs. I had converted the package to multiarch just before the freeze and only noticed today that I hadn't noticed that the RC bug I introduced (#678977) had been reopened after I had marked it as fixed. Relevant parts of the changelog are attached below. Thanks, -Hilko libguestfs (1:1.18.4-2) unstable; urgency=low * [f0017a7] Added change to podwrapper.sh.in to pass a specific date to pod2man which should avoid multiarch co-installability problems (Closes: #680885, #680886) * [3b4844a] Fixed versioned Breaks/Replaces statement to include epoch (Closes: #678977) -- Hilko Bengen <[email protected]> Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:27:33 +0200 libguestfs (1:1.18.4-1) unstable; urgency=low * [3fc6f7c] Imported Upstream version 1.18.4 * [90f05f5] Rebased patch queue; dropped libruby detection fix which has been picked up upstream -- Hilko Bengen <[email protected]> Sun, 08 Jul 2012 00:04:46 +0200 libguestfs (1:1.18.3-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream version * [9154622] Rebased patch queue; added libruby detection fix -- Hilko Bengen <[email protected]> Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:04:47 +0200 libguestfs (1:1.18.2-2) unstable; urgency=low * [f094ece] Added Replaces statement (Closes: #678977). One of these days I will learn how to properly move files between packages. * [1cde91e] Moved installation of default configuration to the last position. This should fix the "libguestfs: error: FUSE not supported" problem reported by SharkWipf on IRC. -- Hilko Bengen <[email protected]> Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:15:21 +0200 libguestfs (1:1.18.2-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream version * [95e1b8e] Rebased and cleaned up patch queue * [0d5c22c] Made watch file more flexible * [c342e50] Bumped Debhelper compatibility level to 9 * [864d294] Disabled strict checking for format-security related errors in test programs * [a8d9101] Adjusted installation directories (multi-arch support) * [042a7e2] Moved libguestfs-test-tool and supermin appliance handling to libguestfs-tools package * [1764d50] Added Multi-Arch headers -- Hilko Bengen <[email protected]> Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:58:19 +0200 libguestfs (1:1.18.1-1) unstable; urgency=low * New upstream version * [9449d4e] Updated watch file * [a8bb722] Added a method for determining available Ruby versions at build time * [9b63f09] rebased patch queue -- Hilko Bengen <[email protected]> Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:32:27 +0200
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 21:30 +0200, Hilko Bengen wrote: > * Adam D. Barratt: > > I'm not sure I understand the question. The changelog has > > > > +libguestfs (1:1.18.1-1wheezy1) testing; urgency=low > > > > so the package won't go to unstable. You just upload to ftp-master as > > usual. > > Ah, okay. I wasn't sure whether that was possible. > > Does the package go to a -proposed-updates queue from where it has to be > manually unblocked? It ends up in testing-proposed-updates, yes. It's somewhat different from the stable proposed-updates queues, in that packages get automatically built and made available on mirrors without any intervention from us; the package won't enter testing without a hint being added though (which is also the case outside of freeze time). > > In line with the versioning policy described in the Developers > > Reference (with a slight modification we aim to have documented there > > soon), we'd prefer a version of "1:1.18.1-1+deb7u1" though. > > I have fixed that and am uploading now. Thanks; approve hint added. Regards, Adam
--- End Message ---
