Your message dated Sat, 30 Mar 2019 17:58:14 +0100 with message-id <b672e66d-1352-04ff-684e-67f291cbb...@debian.org> and subject line Re: Bug#922340: unblock: open-build-service/2.9.4-1 has caused the Debian Bug report #922340, regarding unblock: open-build-service/2.9.4-1 to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 922340: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=922340 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Please unblock package open-build-service A lot of effort has been put into `open-build-service`, since ruby rails 5 transition needed to happen and it did. Even uploading the package on-time it was delayed due to a couple dependencies: `ruby-clockwork` and `ruby-jquery-ui-rails`. Please consider an exception and allow `open-build-service` into Buster release. I am not attaching a debdiff since it is a major upstream version update. You might check gitlab instead at: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/open-build-service And its dependencies at: https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-clockwork https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-jquery-ui-rails unblock open-build-service/2.9.4-1 -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: armhf Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=ca_AD.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=ca_AD.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=ca_AD:ca (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---tags 922340 wontfix thanks On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 18:04:10 +0000 Jonathan Wiltshire <j...@debian.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 11:51:45PM +0100, Hector Oron wrote: > > OK, I tried, and to be honest, stable isn't perfect either, since > > distro lifecycle is longer than application support, so not allowing > > newer upstream versions in stable is problematic security wise in the > > long term. open-build-service is not the only one in this category, > > there are many packages in the same situation and it'd be nice to find > > a common solution for all those. > > What is upstream's approach to stable security updates like? How long is a > stable series maintained? Is it realistic to cherry-pick fixes from new > upstream releases for buster's lifetime? > > New upstreams in stable aren't a problem in themselves, but when not all > new upstream releases are suitable (e.g. mixing bug fixes and features) the > effect can be to block further releases, and make fixing high severity bugs > harder. Ok, let's finish this discussion. No unblock, sorry. Paulsignature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---