Hi Debian Release, A small summary of current situation: - ensymble is in RFA since Jan 2011 (#611552) - ensymble upstream released 0.29 in May 2010 (http://code.google.com/p/ensymble/downloads/list) - new upstream 0.29 also fixes #629125 - debian currently has 0.28-2 in sid and wheezy - 0.28-2 uses the deprecated py_central (#616799) - Dominic has made most of the work for the preparation of 0.29-1 and published it in a git repo - I cloned his repo and provided a fix for #616799 targeting for 0.29-1 - I am not a DD or DM, nor do I have the time to adopt ensymble (but I would like to see 0.29 in wheezy)
Please also see comments below and advice on the preferred course of action. 2012/10/7 Dominic Hargreaves <[email protected]>: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 08:25:43PM +0300, Eddy Petrișor wrote: > >> Attached there is a complete 0.29-1 package version based on Dominic's master >> version from his git repo, with the necessary changes made to fix bug #616799 >> (python-central is deprecated) and the bug #629125 (sha module is >> deprecated). > > Thanks! The 0.28 branch in git should probably be merged (at least the > changelog) before upload. I merged it. There were no changes in the packaging except: - merged the 0.28-2 changelog entry - the X-Python-Version changed from 2.6 (as on master) to all (as on 0.28-2 - the version from sid) - The debian/ensymble.links file in 0.28-2 was removed since there is no /usr/share/ensymble/cmdmain.py anymore >> These changes can be pulled from my git repo of ensymble (based on >> Dominic's repo): >> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/eddyp-guest/ensymble.git >> >> >> The package ensymbe is alreaby in RFA state for some time (#611552), he >> already >> pre-approved a NMU for this version, as seen from his personal repo in the >> master branch: >> >> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/dom/ensymble.git;a=blob;f=debian/changelog;h=bffeebf79a250b500fc1b319d2267db78e5d17b8;hb=master > > For the avoidance of doubt, the file you've pointed to does not > pre-approve any NMU; "Acknowledge NMU" means that the maintainer has > noticed a *previous* NMU. However I do not object to another NMU if > someone feels that's appropriate. Oh, my bad. It's been so much time since I've worked in Debian that I forgot these things. I am sorry if I seemed pushy or rude with my misunderstanding. > I cannot promise any timescale for reviewing/applying these changes, > so an NMU is absolutely fine, but please let me if you (generic) plan on > doing so. I will keep this on my radar in the meantime. I am not a DD nor a DM, so I don't have any upload rights. I was hoping somebody with such rights would sponsor the upload. Not sure if debian-release has an attachment size-based filter, so I'll send the updated package to the BRs in a separate mail to make sure the message arrives in debian-release. >> So, in my opinion, this new version can be uploaded to the archive to ease up >> the deprecation of python-central. If release managers think a new upstream >> version is too much, maybe it can be blocked from transitioning, until the >> new >> version gets enough testing in sid. >> >> If you think a 0.28 version should be provided, please tell me, so I >> can provide a version based on 0.28. > > If you would like to see these changes in wheezy I recommend that you > talk directly to the release team (please CC these bugs). Added debian-release in CC. Release team, is a new upstream version appropriate, taking into account the following? - the upstream version was released in 2010 (no other releases since then), - and the new version also fixes #629125 If not, do you advice for a 0.28-3 version with only the fix for the py_central deprecation (and maybe a patch for 629125)? >> You can pull my changes if you add my repo as a remote then pull and merge. >> >> git remote add -f eddy >> git://anonscm.debian.org/users/eddyp-guest/ensymble.git >> git co upstream && git merge eddy/upstream >> git co pristine-tar && git merge eddy/pristine-tar >> git checkout master && git merge eddy/master >> >> >> I also fixed the layout of the files in the upstream branch which >> should contain what was in 'upsteam/current'. (it seems in the SVN to >> git transition the different upstream branches were not treated as >> such, but the entire upstream directory was considered a single >> branch). > > Thanks :) NP. The new changes are published in my repo. >> P.S.: I added myself to Uploaders, but I am not sure if this is >> necessary since I don't intend to take over the package myself (and I >> forgot some of the packaging stuff I once knew). If this is wrong, >> please remove the line. > > It sounds like it shouldn't be there then. Removed. -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition. - Carl Sagan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cak0xtwdisehnf7wonxfutopb05gyx7cd126fikenfsscmpa...@mail.gmail.com
