Bug#736494: About #736494
On 2014-04-16 16:18, William Dauchy wrote: On Apr16 11:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote: One thing that wasn't absolutely clear from the original (although I guess was potentially implied) is whether any of the fixes which are relevant have previously been applied in some way to the packages in unstable. All the fixes are backports from upstream which are included in package currently in unstable (5.5.x) Thanks for the confirmation. On a related note, it would be appreciated if comments such as cleanup series were more verbose in future, as it appears to have involved removing enabled patches (which ones hopes have been replaced by newer patches) as well as those which were already disabled. I will be more versbose on those; it was commented patches in series, so not used; this modification has also been made in unstable. Thanks. Just a gentle reminder, the window for getting an upload in to the 7.5 point release closes over the weekend. Regards, Adam -- 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/62822e09ae49c94255dfddcde334c...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Bug#736494: About #736494
On Fri, April 18, 2014 17:46, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On 2014-04-16 16:18, William Dauchy wrote: On Apr16 11:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On a related note, it would be appreciated if comments such as cleanup series were more verbose in future, as it appears to have involved removing enabled patches (which ones hopes have been replaced by newer patches) as well as those which were already disabled. I will be more versbose on those; it was commented patches in series, so not used; this modification has also been made in unstable. Thanks. Just a gentle reminder, the window for getting an upload in to the 7.5 point release closes over the weekend. Thanks for the reminder. It should have been uploaded less than an hour ago. Cheers, Thijs -- 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/b274b3caf50e6f06e1af1c78e0a3f4d0.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Bug#736494: About #736494
Control: tags -1 + pending On 2014-04-18 16:53, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Fri, April 18, 2014 17:46, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Just a gentle reminder, the window for getting an upload in to the 7.5 point release closes over the weekend. Thanks for the reminder. It should have been uploaded less than an hour ago. Indeed; that was during dinstall, so it hadn't popped up on our radar. Flagged for acceptance; thanks. Regards, Adam -- 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/f1f95bd8f43d3dd3e057139230168...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#736494: About #736494
Processing control commands: tags -1 + pending Bug #736494 [release.debian.org] pu: package php5/5.4.45.4.4-14+deb7u8 Added tag(s) pending. -- 736494: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736494 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: https://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b736494.139784251428352.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#736494: About #736494
Hi Adam, On Sun, April 13, 2014 14:39, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 13:58 +0200, William Dauchy wrote: Is there someone available to validate this package? Lots of present fixes are more than needed to have an usable version of php in production. Such comments really aren't that helpful. It's entirely possible to have an usable version of php in production using the current package in wheezy, or it wouldn't have made it in to wheezy in the first place and no-one would have been using it on stable systems for the past year. (That's not to say that some people aren't adversely affected by issues in the current package, but that's far from your claim that it's generally unusable.) I realise you've put a lot of effort in to the patch, and that's obviously appreciated, but a diff for stable of the size 46 files changed, 4303 insertions(+), 372 deletions(-) where most of the diff appears to be actual changes (as opposed to translations, or autogenerated files) is non-trivial to review, particularly when people are already short on time. :( I fully understand the lack of manpower. But also, obviously the update fixes significant bugs and has seen lots of real world testing, probably more than many of the other packages proposed for a stable update. Is there a model or approach you can suggest that would work for the SRMs? Cheers, Thijs -- 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/aa74801f21a98566c5da9dfabe5cf027.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Bug#736494: About #736494
Hi, On 2014-04-16 10:19, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Sun, April 13, 2014 14:39, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 13:58 +0200, William Dauchy wrote: Is there someone available to validate this package? Lots of present fixes are more than needed to have an usable version of php in production. Such comments really aren't that helpful. It's entirely possible to have an usable version of php in production using the current package in wheezy, or it wouldn't have made it in to wheezy in the first place and no-one would have been using it on stable systems for the past year. (That's not to say that some people aren't adversely affected by issues in the current package, but that's far from your claim that it's generally unusable.) I realise you've put a lot of effort in to the patch, and that's obviously appreciated, but a diff for stable of the size 46 files changed, 4303 insertions(+), 372 deletions(-) where most of the diff appears to be actual changes (as opposed to translations, or autogenerated files) is non-trivial to review, particularly when people are already short on time. :( I fully understand the lack of manpower. But also, obviously the update fixes significant bugs and has seen lots of real world testing, probably more than many of the other packages proposed for a stable update. Indeed. One thing that wasn't absolutely clear from the original (although I guess was potentially implied) is whether any of the fixes which are relevant have previously been applied in some way to the packages in unstable. Is there a model or approach you can suggest that would work for the SRMs? In all honesty, I'm not sure putting the changes off any longer is going to increase the chances of someone finding the time to do a detailed review. I'm also conscious that we're now within a few days of the window for 7.5 closing. If the upload was made in time, I'm inclined to accept it for 7.5; it will need updating to account for the fact that there's been a stable-security upload since the original diff was produced. On a related note, it would be appreciated if comments such as cleanup series were more verbose in future, as it appears to have involved removing enabled patches (which ones hopes have been replaced by newer patches) as well as those which were already disabled. Regards, Adam -- 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/ad7dbe457b57686b36fb3dce638ea...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
Bug#736494: About #736494
On Apr16 11:06, Adam D. Barratt wrote: One thing that wasn't absolutely clear from the original (although I guess was potentially implied) is whether any of the fixes which are relevant have previously been applied in some way to the packages in unstable. All the fixes are backports from upstream which are included in package currently in unstable (5.5.x) On a related note, it would be appreciated if comments such as cleanup series were more verbose in future, as it appears to have involved removing enabled patches (which ones hopes have been replaced by newer patches) as well as those which were already disabled. I will be more versbose on those; it was commented patches in series, so not used; this modification has also been made in unstable. -- William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#736494: About #736494
Hi, Is there someone available to validate this package? Lots of present fixes are more than needed to have an usable version of php in production. Thanks, -- William -- 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/caj75kxyos0xi+fwz8xgk8haz1jpjejrqd+48o-w-u8mas-n...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#736494: About #736494
On Sun, 2014-04-13 at 13:58 +0200, William Dauchy wrote: Is there someone available to validate this package? Lots of present fixes are more than needed to have an usable version of php in production. Such comments really aren't that helpful. It's entirely possible to have an usable version of php in production using the current package in wheezy, or it wouldn't have made it in to wheezy in the first place and no-one would have been using it on stable systems for the past year. (That's not to say that some people aren't adversely affected by issues in the current package, but that's far from your claim that it's generally unusable.) I realise you've put a lot of effort in to the patch, and that's obviously appreciated, but a diff for stable of the size 46 files changed, 4303 insertions(+), 372 deletions(-) where most of the diff appears to be actual changes (as opposed to translations, or autogenerated files) is non-trivial to review, particularly when people are already short on time. :( Regards, Adam -- 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/1397392798.24647.22.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#736494: About #736494
Hello Adam, Thank your for your quick reply. On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: I realise you've put a lot of effort in to the patch, and that's obviously appreciated, but a diff for stable of the size 46 files changed, 4303 insertions(+), 372 deletions(-) where most of the diff appears to be actual changes (as opposed to translations, or autogenerated files) is non-trivial to review, particularly when people are already short on time. :( I'm just looking for a way to help in this validation. As a reminder all these fixes are (easy) backports from upstream. I've also included these fixes in my production servers which are including thousands of php processes. The result seems quite good reducing the overall number of crashes; my two cents. Regards, -- William -- 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/caj75kxbkdtjh4un8yb0sh62goledc5wfe613zm072ndqdqm...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#736494: About #736494
Hi William, 5.4.4-14+deb7u8 didn’t pass our test, but the one you sent me (8.1) works, can you think of any reason why this is happening? Clement On Mar 10, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Clement Wong c...@clement.hk wrote: Hi, I’ve confirm that this package passed our tests, solved sybase problem, and not causing other regressions. Thanks for working on this. Feel free to poke me for any test in the future, our systems are highly integrated with all kinds of MS/MS-compatible products. Like AD/Samba4/SQLSRV/OpenChange etc. Clement On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:47 PM, William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com wrote: please see: php.tar.gz please don't pay attention to the version numbering. Regards, -- William
Bug#736494: About #736494
Ok, sorry for the misleading email, apparently 7u8 is from wheezy-security, so this fix is not applied yet. Clement On Mar 18, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Clement Wong c...@clement.hk wrote: Hi William, 5.4.4-14+deb7u8 didn’t pass our test, but the one you sent me (8.1) works, can you think of any reason why this is happening? Clement On Mar 10, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Clement Wong c...@clement.hk wrote: Hi, I’ve confirm that this package passed our tests, solved sybase problem, and not causing other regressions. Thanks for working on this. Feel free to poke me for any test in the future, our systems are highly integrated with all kinds of MS/MS-compatible products. Like AD/Samba4/SQLSRV/OpenChange etc. Clement On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:47 PM, William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com wrote: please see: php.tar.gz please don't pay attention to the version numbering. Regards, -- William
Bug#736494: About #736494
On 18 Mar 2014 12:18, Clement Wong c...@clement.hk wrote: Ok, sorry for the misleading email, apparently 7u8 is from wheezy-security, so this fix is not applied yet. Yes indeed.
Bug#736494: About #736494
Hi, I’ve confirm that this package passed our tests, solved sybase problem, and not causing other regressions. Thanks for working on this. Feel free to poke me for any test in the future, our systems are highly integrated with all kinds of MS/MS-compatible products. Like AD/Samba4/SQLSRV/OpenChange etc. Clement On Mar 10, 2014, at 2:47 PM, William Dauchy wdau...@gmail.com wrote: please see: php.tar.gz please don't pay attention to the version numbering. Regards, -- William
