Bug#267428: Bug#261824: time's up
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:54:14AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > I did the "new upstream", so I can tell you that it was only a couple of > lines of code changes, and they were tested well before being put into the > silo repo. > I don't think it needs extensive testing. It seems that this version of silo ended up being used to build the CDs for d-i RC3 (even though the .deb *on* the CDs came from testing), so it's already getting more extensive testing than I think we bargained for. It also seems to be holding up well under it, so I'm going ahead and approving 1.4.9-1 for testing, barring the appearance of any last-minute RC bugs. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:34:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:30:55AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > > Can the silo I just uploaded go into testing atleast? It does fix some > > > bugs. In fact, it may fix some of the rc silo bugs, but I need testing > > > with it to make sure (didn't want to claim the bugs were fixed without > > > testing by others first). > > > > It fixes the RC build-dependency bug, so it should probably go in; but given > > that it's a new upstream version, it should get a fair measure of testing > > first -- at least to verify it hasn't caused any major regressions, whether > > or not it fixes the outstanding bugs. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Steve Langasek > > postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#267428: Bug#261824: time's up
I did the "new upstream", so I can tell you that it was only a couple of lines of code changes, and they were tested well before being put into the silo repo. I don't think it needs extensive testing. On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:34:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:30:55AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > Can the silo I just uploaded go into testing atleast? It does fix some > > bugs. In fact, it may fix some of the rc silo bugs, but I need testing > > with it to make sure (didn't want to claim the bugs were fixed without > > testing by others first). > > It fixes the RC build-dependency bug, so it should probably go in; but given > that it's a new upstream version, it should get a fair measure of testing > first -- at least to verify it hasn't caused any major regressions, whether > or not it fixes the outstanding bugs. > > Thanks, > -- > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer > > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:54:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > severity 261824 important > > > severity 267428 important > > > thanks > > > > > > Time's up, folks; if no fix has been found yet for these bootloader bugs, > > > they'll have to remain hardware-specific errata for sarge. They will no > > > longer be allowed to block the release, since silo still works on the > > > majority of sparc hardware. > > > > > > Someone should, however, document these problems for the install manual > > > and/or d-i errata. > > > > > > If someone can determine one way or another whether the gcc-2.95 rebuild > > > actually fixes the problem on Ultra5 for someone other than Geert, that > > > would help me in deciding whether an NMU is warranted. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#267428: Bug#261824: time's up
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:30:55AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > Can the silo I just uploaded go into testing atleast? It does fix some > bugs. In fact, it may fix some of the rc silo bugs, but I need testing > with it to make sure (didn't want to claim the bugs were fixed without > testing by others first). It fixes the RC build-dependency bug, so it should probably go in; but given that it's a new upstream version, it should get a fair measure of testing first -- at least to verify it hasn't caused any major regressions, whether or not it fixes the outstanding bugs. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:54:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > severity 261824 important > > severity 267428 important > > thanks > > > > Time's up, folks; if no fix has been found yet for these bootloader bugs, > > they'll have to remain hardware-specific errata for sarge. They will no > > longer be allowed to block the release, since silo still works on the > > majority of sparc hardware. > > > > Someone should, however, document these problems for the install manual > > and/or d-i errata. > > > > If someone can determine one way or another whether the gcc-2.95 rebuild > > actually fixes the problem on Ultra5 for someone other than Geert, that > > would help me in deciding whether an NMU is warranted. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#267428: Bug#261824: time's up
Can the silo I just uploaded go into testing atleast? It does fix some bugs. In fact, it may fix some of the rc silo bugs, but I need testing with it to make sure (didn't want to claim the bugs were fixed without testing by others first). On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:54:12AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > severity 261824 important > severity 267428 important > thanks > > Time's up, folks; if no fix has been found yet for these bootloader bugs, > they'll have to remain hardware-specific errata for sarge. They will no > longer be allowed to block the release, since silo still works on the > majority of sparc hardware. > > Someone should, however, document these problems for the install manual > and/or d-i errata. > > If someone can determine one way or another whether the gcc-2.95 rebuild > actually fixes the problem on Ultra5 for someone other than Geert, that > would help me in deciding whether an NMU is warranted. > > Thanks, > -- > Steve Langasek > postmodern programmer -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
