Your message dated Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:23:35 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#768976: unblock: fail2ban/0.9.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #768976,
regarding unblock: fail2ban/0.9.1-1
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
768976: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=768976
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 fail2ban
We have 0.8.13 in jessie ATM and I have released 0.9.1 and uploaded 0.9.1-1
just few days too short of a freeze - 10days (why didn't I change urgency? ;))
[2014-10-28] Accepted fail2ban 0.9.1-1 (source all) into unstable (Yaroslav
Halchenko)
0.9.1 is the 2nd release in the 0.9.0 line and I had 0.9.0 in experimental for
a while. So far it shows great promise to be very stable and much more
versatile than 0.8.x -- we introduced multiline matching, eliminated divergance
between Debian's and upstream jail.conf definitions, extended testing a lot
(92% code coverage). After the release I haven't seen major bug reports (there
is one minor typo to be fixed) and I have high confidence that this release
would be a much better fit to maintain in Debian jessie (instead of now very
stable but aging fast 0.8.).
debdiff would be infeasible (we also made it a proper fail2ban python module
instead of a bunch of internal submodules), but let me know if I need to
provide more lines of argumentation to feature unblock
unblock fail2ban/0.9.1-1
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (900, 'testing'), (600, 'unstable'), (300, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.17-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2014-11-10 15:12, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: [email protected]
> Usertags: unblock
>
> Please unblock package fail2ban
>
Hi,
> We have 0.8.13 in jessie ATM and I have released 0.9.1 and uploaded 0.9.1-1
> just few days too short of a freeze - 10days (why didn't I change urgency? ;))
>
FTR, that would not have helped. Prior to the freeze, there was a
forced 10-day migration[1].
> [2014-10-28] Accepted fail2ban 0.9.1-1 (source all) into unstable (Yaroslav
> Halchenko)
>
> 0.9.1 is the 2nd release in the 0.9.0 line and I had 0.9.0 in experimental for
> a while. So far it shows great promise to be very stable and much more
> versatile than 0.8.x -- we introduced multiline matching, eliminated
> divergance
> between Debian's and upstream jail.conf definitions, extended testing a lot
> (92% code coverage). After the release I haven't seen major bug reports
> (there
> is one minor typo to be fixed) and I have high confidence that this release
> would be a much better fit to maintain in Debian jessie (instead of now very
> stable but aging fast 0.8.).
>
> debdiff would be infeasible (we also made it a proper fail2ban python module
> instead of a bunch of internal submodules), but let me know if I need to
> provide more lines of argumentation to feature unblock
>
> unblock fail2ban/0.9.1-1
>
> [...]
While the changes do sound interesting and promising, a freeze is not
the time to apply such a change. Sadly, I will be declining your
request, sorry.
Yours truly,
~Niels
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/10/msg00001.html
--- End Message ---
