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 : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~desktop-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
