On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:21 AM, John McCabe-Dansted <gma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda <sa...@lyx.org> wrote:
>> the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
>> versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
>> so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
>> (not well tested qt's && lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
>> its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
>> configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
>> shouldn't be the case.
>
> Apparently this is being fixed:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/lyx/+bug/775900
Well, with Ubuntu, the procedure is to file an "Stable Release Update"
request. Do we want to try asking them to upgrade to 1.6.10?
What we want to do, seems to fit best with
"... Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an
obviously safe patch and (2) affect an application rather than
critical infrastructure packages (like X.org or the kernel). ..."
And more precisely:
"New upstream microreleases
In some cases, when upstream fixes bugs, they do a new microrelease
instead of just sending patches. If all of the changes are appropriate
for an SRU by the criteria above, then it is acceptable (and usually
easier) to just upload the complete new upstream microrelease instead
of backporting the individual patches. Note that some noise introduced
by autoreconf is okay, but making structural changes to the build
system (such as introducing new library dependencies) is generally
not.
If a new upstream release has more intrusive changes, you need to
request an exception from the Technical Board, especially if you are
going to upload the package with non-SRU changes multiple times in the
future. Please see special cases below."
Here is a argument we could make for an SRU to 1.6.10
1) This is a one off request, 1.6.10 is the final 1.6.x release so
terms relating to frequent updates do not apply.
2) Monkeytesting has been used to improve the quality of LyX and
detect regressions, which together with LyX's plentiful ASSERTs has
found to be a good way of finding bugs. Iirc the 1.6.5 was the last
LyX that did not have/benefit from automated testing. (There was even
a presentation about Mon-Keytest at linux.conf.au 2011 :)
3) LyX 1.6.10 has been out for 2 months. No regressions have been reported.
4) No dependencies need to be added.
5) LyX is an application, not "critical infrastructure", indeed
"apt-rdepends -r lyx" reports no dependencies.
6) Most changes to documentation etc. after 1.5 years of bug fixing,
diff of 1.6.{5,10}/src ~4000 lines
7) The focus of these changes are primarily bug fixes, though a script
has been added that allows LyX 1.6.10 to open the newer LyX 2.x
documents. This is important as it allows LyX 1.6.10 users to
collaborate with users of newer versions of LyX. With respect to
Ubuntu, this will allow LTS and non-LTS (Natty and on) users to
collaborate.
The bugs fixed in this micro-release include, for example, this bug,
which has been causing Ubuntu users much grief, and is a regression
(note that monkeytesting was not used in earlier versions of LyX):
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lyx/+bug/560715
Does this look right? Does anyone want to disagree?
--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
