[pkg-go] Bug#858250: Bug#861953: unblock: runc/0.1.1+dfsg1-3
control: tag 858250 -pending control: affects 858250 -stretch +sid control: notfound 858250 0.1.1+dfsg1-2 On Thu, 18 May 2017 12:48:11 +0100 Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Control: tag -1 wontfix moreinfo > > Hi, > > On 2017-05-08 00:40, Roger Shimizu wrote: > > Since you say it should fix unstable first, then stretch or t-p-u, > > now I think we may just leave runc/0.1.1+dfsg1-2 (current in stretch) > > as it is in stretch. Because it builds OK (without FTBFS) for stretch. > > The #858250 FTBFS only occurs on unstable. > > If runc currently builds in stretch, there is no need to touch it (and > #858250 should be tagged 'sid'). > > It's not clear from #858250 if that is actually the case or not though. Thanks for your explanation! Yes, it builds well in stretch. I did a s/unstable/testing/ for latest changelog, and upload it to DoM: http://debomatic-amd64.debian.net/distribution#testing/runc/0.1.1+dfsg1-2/buildlog So I close the unblock request, and mark the original bug only affects unstable. It's not a RC for stretch. Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1 pgpZ5scPXihO8.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
[pkg-go] Bug#858250: Bug#861953: unblock: runc/0.1.1+dfsg1-3
control: tag 861953 -moreinfo On Mon, 8 May 2017 08:40:52 +0900 Roger Shimizu wrote: > What's your opinion? I proposed two plans. Either is fine to me. Please kindly help to decide, so as to avoid a few packages get removed in stretch. Thank you! Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1 pgpzmI4wUCyMC.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
[pkg-go] Bug#858250: Bug#861953: unblock: runc/0.1.1+dfsg1-3
[ CC: original Bug #858250 ] On Sun, 07 May 2017 21:02:00 + Niels Thykier wrote: > Roger Shimizu: > > Package: release.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: release.debian@packages.debian.org > > Usertags: unblock > > > > Please unblock package runc > > > > Since there's already a newer package in unstable, I guess it's > > necessary to use "testing-proposed-updates" > > > > Here I'm fixing #858250, which is FTBFS RC issue. > > > Hi Roger, > > Thanks for working on fixing #858250 for stretch. :) > > Before there is an upload to testing-proposed-updates, the original bug > should be resolved in unstable first. That means that #858250 should be > closed in unstable first. > > On a related note, the Debian Bug Tracker can determine which suites are > affected by looking at found + fixed versions, so there is no need to > have two bugs for this (which is why I have merged #861966 back into > #858250). #858250 is not easy to fix for unstable, since there's already newer version runc/1.0.0~rc2+git20161109.131.5137186-2, with newer version of Build-Depends golang-github-opencontainers-specs/1.0.0~rc2+git20160926.38.1c7c27d-1. As stated by #858250, runc is FTBFS with golang-github-opencontainers-specs/1.0.0~rc2+git20160926.38.1c7c27d-1. So my original plan was just patch d/control to limit the version of Build-Depends. Since you say it should fix unstable first, then stretch or t-p-u, now I think we may just leave runc/0.1.1+dfsg1-2 (current in stretch) as it is in stretch. Because it builds OK (without FTBFS) for stretch. The #858250 FTBFS only occurs on unstable. What's your opinion? Cheers, -- Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo PGP/GPG: 4096R/6C6ACD6417B3ACB1 pgpErMrJmeJw9.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers