Bug#717420: update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12
Hi, intrigeri wrote (22 Jan 2014 10:35:56 GMT) : Daniel Pocock wrote (21 Jan 2014 17:55:15 GMT) : On 21/01/14 18:43, intrigeri wrote: Jonathan Wiltshire wrote (25 Sep 2013 21:59:15 GMT) : I could provide a diff that eliminates changes in such files. Yes, please. AFAICT, this stable proposed update has been blocking on the lack of a filtered diff for almost 4 months. Daniel, do you still intend to follow-up on this? There have been more upstream improvements, we now have 1.8.14 and may make up 1.8.15 just to backport any final bugs that were fixed in the 1.9.0 testing You might want to retitle this bug accordingly, then. If I provide a filtered diff between 1.8.5 and 1.8.15 will that definitely be considered for stable? I'm not a member of the release team, but in my experience all not-too-crazy pu diffs are at least considered, once they are actually shown to the release team. Ping? Cheers, -- intrigeri -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85r3xdnww6@boum.org
Bug#717420: update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12
Hi, Daniel Pocock wrote (21 Jan 2014 17:55:15 GMT) : On 21/01/14 18:43, intrigeri wrote: Jonathan Wiltshire wrote (25 Sep 2013 21:59:15 GMT) : I could provide a diff that eliminates changes in such files. Yes, please. AFAICT, this stable proposed update has been blocking on the lack of a filtered diff for almost 4 months. Daniel, do you still intend to follow-up on this? There have been more upstream improvements, we now have 1.8.14 and may make up 1.8.15 just to backport any final bugs that were fixed in the 1.9.0 testing If I provide a filtered diff between 1.8.5 and 1.8.15 will that definitely be considered for stable? I'm not a member of the release team, but in my experience all not-too-crazy pu diffs are at least considered, once they are actually shown to the release team. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85txcwgv77@boum.org
Bug#717420: update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12
Hi, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote (25 Sep 2013 21:59:15 GMT) : I could provide a diff that eliminates changes in such files. Yes, please. AFAICT, this stable proposed update has been blocking on the lack of a filtered diff for almost 4 months. Daniel, do you still intend to follow-up on this? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/85mwipnsd4@boum.org
Bug#717420: update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:55:08PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: A lot of that is because the autotools artifacts (e.g. Makefile.in) are quite big and have been regenerated on each release Other things can also be ignored, for example, there are lots of XML files for the Windows build system (Visual Studio) but those are ignored on Linux builds. All the changes in those files are ignored. I could provide a diff that eliminates changes in such files. Yes, please. deletions(-) and adds two new packages. We'd need a lot of convincing that the latter is worth doing, rather than just proving updates via backports (fwiw, I'm only aware of one occasion where a new package was introduced to a release once it was stable, and that was openssh-blacklist via security.d.o, which is a somewhat different situation). That is because I diffed the tag for the wheezy package against the tag on the unstable package If you are comfortable with the basic aim of updating this package, then I will merge the 1.8.12 upstream release with the original wheezy packaging artifacts and submit a more precise diff for final approval. The set of packages will then remain the same, no new package will be added. I think 'final approval' is a bit optimistic in this case. But there's no point discussing anything without seeing your proposed diff (though if you find yourself spending time on this that's probably an indication of much it's worth fixing this). Thanks, -- Jonathan Wiltshire j...@debian.org Debian Developer http://people.debian.org/~jmw 4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC 74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Processed: Re: Bug#717420: update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12
Processing control commands: tag -1 + moreinfo Bug #717420 [release.debian.org] update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 717420: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717420 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b717420.138014681721223.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#717420: update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12
On 21/07/13 20:15, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 20:26 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: important Nope. Bugs in packages may have all kinds of severities, requests to update packages in stable are normal at best. (It would also be helpful if you used reportbug or otherwise normalised the usertags and titles when making such requests.) For the record, I had to dig the mail to which I'm replying out of a BTS mbox; it never reached the debian-release list, presumably due to the size of the diff. Ok, if I submit something like this again, I'll include a link to the git web diff We've found that versions of reSIProcate 1.8.11-4 are not reliable on non-Intel platforms. Does anyone actually use the package on such architectures? I don't know However, I understand it is important to ensure people have a positive experience with Debian and even if just one person tries this package on PowerPC or S/390 I wouldn't want to knowingly let them waste time on a flawed version of the package. In particular, essential code such as the MD5 implementation was not being compiled the right way for big endian systems. The code may appear to compile and run but as soon as a user tries to engage in a DIGEST authentication they will find that it fails to operate correctly. [...] A long list of other bug fixes is also included, several of them eliminate bugs that can cause a crash The cumulative effect of all bug fixes on the 1.8.x release branch brings a significant improvement in quality and convenience for end users. The _filtered_ diffstat is 189 files changed, 5819 insertions(+), 2235 A lot of that is because the autotools artifacts (e.g. Makefile.in) are quite big and have been regenerated on each release Other things can also be ignored, for example, there are lots of XML files for the Windows build system (Visual Studio) but those are ignored on Linux builds. All the changes in those files are ignored. I could provide a diff that eliminates changes in such files. deletions(-) and adds two new packages. We'd need a lot of convincing that the latter is worth doing, rather than just proving updates via backports (fwiw, I'm only aware of one occasion where a new package was introduced to a release once it was stable, and that was openssh-blacklist via security.d.o, which is a somewhat different situation). That is because I diffed the tag for the wheezy package against the tag on the unstable package If you are comfortable with the basic aim of updating this package, then I will merge the 1.8.12 upstream release with the original wheezy packaging artifacts and submit a more precise diff for final approval. The set of packages will then remain the same, no new package will be added. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51ed1d9c.60...@pocock.com.au
Bug#717420: update reSIProcate in stable from 1.8.5 - 1.8.12
On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 20:26 +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: important Nope. Bugs in packages may have all kinds of severities, requests to update packages in stable are normal at best. (It would also be helpful if you used reportbug or otherwise normalised the usertags and titles when making such requests.) For the record, I had to dig the mail to which I'm replying out of a BTS mbox; it never reached the debian-release list, presumably due to the size of the diff. We've found that versions of reSIProcate 1.8.11-4 are not reliable on non-Intel platforms. Does anyone actually use the package on such architectures? In particular, essential code such as the MD5 implementation was not being compiled the right way for big endian systems. The code may appear to compile and run but as soon as a user tries to engage in a DIGEST authentication they will find that it fails to operate correctly. [...] A long list of other bug fixes is also included, several of them eliminate bugs that can cause a crash The cumulative effect of all bug fixes on the 1.8.x release branch brings a significant improvement in quality and convenience for end users. The _filtered_ diffstat is 189 files changed, 5819 insertions(+), 2235 deletions(-) and adds two new packages. We'd need a lot of convincing that the latter is worth doing, rather than just proving updates via backports (fwiw, I'm only aware of one occasion where a new package was introduced to a release once it was stable, and that was openssh-blacklist via security.d.o, which is a somewhat different situation). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1374430544.5881.42.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
