Based on discussion in #ubuntu-release, impact of reverting from 1.9.2 to 1.8 may not be as risk free as hoped.
<cjwatson> how big is the reverse dep tree anyway? <jbicha> Mageia was also having trouble getting WebKit 1.9 to build <infinity> 140 reverse build-deps. Not sure how far down the tree that gets one. <cjwatson> ow <cjwatson> and those are all on 1.9 already? <infinity> And not sure how many things have been rebuilt against the new ABI (and thus need a rebuild) versus need the new API (thus needing a revert as well) and how many wouldn't need to be touched. <infinity> A versioned rdep scan would be more accurate for the ABI-rebuild question, the API one's a bit tougher. <infinity> And might just be epihany, if we're lucky. Marking this as back to In-progress for quantal until least risk path is figured out. ** Changed in: webkit (Ubuntu Quantal) Status: Won't Fix => In Progress -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Desktop Packages, which is subscribed to webkit in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1005682 Title: FFE: Update webkit to 1.9.91 Status in Webkit Direct Port: Fix Released Status in “webkit” package in Ubuntu: In Progress Status in “webkit” source package in Quantal: In Progress Status in “webkit” source package in r-series: In Progress Bug description: From http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2012/05/25/%23ubuntu- desktop.html#t07:49: [07:49] <micahg> seb128: is anyone working on webkit in quantal? [07:49] <seb128> micahg, no, nobody has been working on webkit in Ubuntu for cycle, I just took up on doing the updates previous cycle because they were stalling [07:50] <seb128> micahg, though we might be able to sync 1.9.2 from Debian experimental, I planned to look at that [07:50] <micahg> seb128: do we need to take 1.10 for Q? [07:50] <seb128> micahg, "need to", I don't know but they follow the GNOME cycle and I would not be surprised if i.e epiphany requires 1.9 [07:53] <micahg> seb128: ok, thanks, if you don't get to it by next week, I might take a look at syncing/merging 1.8.1 from unstable (would prefer you do it though :)) [07:54] <seb128> micahg, does it mean you prefer not to go for 1.9? why? [07:54] <micahg> seb128: well, the idea was to support 1.8 for 5 years, if Q is on 1.8, that's one less extra thing to worry about [07:55] <micahg> OTOH, if 1.10 doesn't have any ABI breaks, might be worth jumping [07:55] <seb128> micahg, right, let's see what goes in 1.9 and if GNOME starts depending on it [07:55] <seb128> micahg, I will let you know [07:55] <micahg> seb128: thanks To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/webkit/+bug/1005682/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages Post to : desktop-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp