Hey, thanks for taking the time to make the patch! There are some problems that I noticed that I think you might want to fix so that we can get this into Ubuntu.
Firstly, the SRU paperwork. The bug you're fixing may very well be a good one to SRU a fix for, but the SRU justification in your comment above is insufficient. Please read https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates carefully, especially section 4 "Procedure". In particular: * The impact section could be made more verbose so that the SRU team has an understanding of *why* something is going wrong, not just *what* is going wrong. * The test plan is inadequate. We need a full, step-by-step list of instructions on how someone other than yourself should set up their systems for testing, and then the exact steps to take for testing. This doesn't have to be crazily detailed (you don't have to describe every single button and keystroke to use), but it needs to be detailed enough that someone else can do it themselves and verify both that the old version is broken and that the new version is fixed. * The "Where problems could occur" section has been left out entirely. This section is mandatory, as any fix, **no matter how small**, comes with regression potential. (This is slightly hard to imagine until you've mangled packages the way I have. :P) Show that you're "expecting the unexpected" here. * The "OTHER INFO" section appears to contain info that was intended for "Where problems could occur". The info in this section is insufficient for a "Where problems could occur" section as it simply states that the regression possibility is low, rather than describing what could go wrong. According to the SRU process documentation, "This (the "Where problems could occur" section) must **never** be "None" or "Low", or entirely an argument as to why your upload is low risk.". * The SRU template goes in the bug report description, not in a comment. Usually the way I do this without overwriting old changes is I edit the bug report, leave the original bug report at the bottom, and place the SRU paperwork at the top. Secondly, the patch itself has some problems: +libfilezilla (0.46.0-3.1build4) noble; urgency=medium ^^^^^^ * This version number is wrong. You're introducing an Ubuntu delta, so you need an "ubuntu" version number here, not a "build" version number. According to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdatePreparation#Update_the_packaging (which is linked to from the SRU documentation), the version number that should be used here is 0.46.0-3.1ubuntu0.1. (And yes, I think that my suggested version number looks as insane as you think it does. Ubuntu version numbers are hard.) * Speaking of an Ubuntu delta, when you make Ubuntu-specific changes to a package, you need to modify debian/control to show that the package has Ubuntu changes. To do this, the 'Maintainer' field in debian/control needs to be converted to an 'XSBC-Original-Maintainer' field, and a new 'Maintainer' field put in its place identifying the Ubuntu Developers as being the maintainer, like so: Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers <[email protected]> * The patch is missing Debian dep3 headers. See https://dep- team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep3/ for more information. You can add these pretty easily using `quilt header --dep3 -e`. I hope this is helpful! Thanks for taking the time to make and test the patch, and hopefully we'll be able to get it into Ubuntu soon. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2061954 Title: filezilla crashed with SIGABRT in start_thread() To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libfilezilla/+bug/2061954/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
