Bug#731547: Accepted upstream
Hi! The patch is accepted upstream: https://git.gnome.org/browse/glib/commit/?id=f7b13e05f9bc5bd2b54f589d16ad580f6d833173 Can we now have a Debian build with the patch applied??!! Mattias smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Bug#731547: Accepted upstream
lör 2015-05-30 klockan 08:17 +0200 skrev Mattias Ellert: > Hi! > > The patch is accepted upstream: > > https://git.gnome.org/browse/glib/commit/?id=f7b13e05f9bc5bd2b54f589d > 16ad580f6d833173 > > Can we now have a Debian build with the patch applied??!! > > Mattias Hi again. Two weeks without any response... If noone else is interested in fixing this bug I would be happy to make an NMU. Mattias signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#731547: Accepted upstream
Am 15.06.2015 um 11:48 schrieb Mattias Ellert: > lör 2015-05-30 klockan 08:17 +0200 skrev Mattias Ellert: >> Hi! >> >> The patch is accepted upstream: >> >> https://git.gnome.org/browse/glib/commit/?id=f7b13e05f9bc5bd2b54f589d >> 16ad580f6d833173 >> >> Can we now have a Debian build with the patch applied??!! >> >> Mattias > > Hi again. > > Two weeks without any response... > > If noone else is interested in fixing this bug I would be happy to make > an NMU. This missed 2.45.2 by a couple of days, but it will be part of 2.45.3. So the next experimental upload will have it. Thanks, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#731547: Accepted upstream
mån 2015-06-15 klockan 13:12 +0200 skrev Michael Biebl: > Am 15.06.2015 um 11:48 schrieb Mattias Ellert: > > lör 2015-05-30 klockan 08:17 +0200 skrev Mattias Ellert: > > > Hi! > > > > > > The patch is accepted upstream: > > > > > > Can we now have a Debian build with the patch applied??!! > > > > > > Mattias > > > > Hi again. > > > > Two weeks without any response... > > > > If noone else is interested in fixing this bug I would be happy to > > make > > an NMU. > > This missed 2.45.2 by a couple of days, but it will be part of > 2.45.3. > So the next experimental upload will have it. > > Thanks, > Michael > Why are you talking about experimental? I didn't say it explicitly, but I thought it was obvious that the NMU would be to unstable. If the bug is fixed in experimental it doesn't help when the bug causes FTBFS in unstable. Mattias signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#731547: Accepted upstream
On 15/06/15 17:58, Mattias Ellert wrote: > mån 2015-06-15 klockan 13:12 +0200 skrev Michael Biebl: >> Am 15.06.2015 um 11:48 schrieb Mattias Ellert: >>> lör 2015-05-30 klockan 08:17 +0200 skrev Mattias Ellert: Hi! The patch is accepted upstream: Can we now have a Debian build with the patch applied??!! Mattias >>> >>> Hi again. >>> >>> Two weeks without any response... >>> >>> If noone else is interested in fixing this bug I would be happy to >>> make >>> an NMU. >> >> This missed 2.45.2 by a couple of days, but it will be part of >> 2.45.3. >> So the next experimental upload will have it. >> >> Thanks, >> Michael >> > > Why are you talking about experimental? I didn't say it explicitly, but > I thought it was obvious that the NMU would be to unstable. > > If the bug is fixed in experimental it doesn't help when the bug causes > FTBFS in unstable. I'm really unhappy with this NMU. Anyway, that's happened now... Your upload failed to build on a few architectures... https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=glib2.0&ver=2.44.1-1.1 Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#731547: Accepted upstream
tis 2015-06-23 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Emilio Pozuelo Monfort: > > I'm really unhappy with this NMU. This bug was reported 18 months ago, after which not much happened. This of course was not so surprising since at the time the knowledge of the source of the problem was sketchy and inconclusive. When I report a bug I prefer to do so with a bit more information, but at the time I was not able to analyse it further. The patch that fixes the bug was attached 8 months ago, and again not much happened for some time. Neither here nor in the upstream bug. This I did find very surprising and increasingly frustrating. Since the two-line, very non-invasive patch was created there has been 4 updates uploaded to Debian unstable, but for some reason the patch was not integrated in neither of them. I have on several occasions offered to create an NMU fixing this bug. Every time - except for this last time - some objection was raised. These objections mostly said that the bug should be addressed upstream first. It is of course a good thing to try to fix a bug upstream, but having the bug fixed upstream is not a prerequisite for fixing the bug in Debian. Although I could have argued that the bug not having been fixed upstream was not a sufficient argument for rejecting the idea of an NMU, I - in the interest of not stepping on anyone's toes - decided to wait. My impression about this bug is that it has induced a lot of emotions in some people, to the extent that I can not understand. Especially some of the comments in the upstream bug report were quite inflammatory and at least to me sounded like trolling attempts to trigger a flame war. The most outrageous comments I simply ignored. I somehow by reporting this bug seem to have found myself being caught in the crossfire in a long-lasting conflict that was not my conflict. It was not a very nice experience. After the patch was finally accepted upstream I again asked when this would be fixed in Debian. When there was no reply I again offered to do an NMU. Since there was no objection I uploaded one. > Anyway, that's happened now... Your upload failed to build on a few > architectures... > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=glib2.0&ver=2.44.1-1.1 > > Emilio After givebacks the builds have succeeded, except for the two kfreebsd builds. The kfreebsd builds have consistently failed the previous last 8 versions (2.45.2-1, 2.45.1-2, 2.45.1-1, 2.44.1-1, 2.44.0-3, 2.44.0-2, 2.44.0-1, 2.43.92-1), so that they should suddenly work for this NMU is not a reasonable idea. Looking back at the buildd history, the glib2.0 package have failed to build 1, 2 or - occasionally - 3 architectures (in addition to the kfreebsd builds mentioned above) for most new uploaded versions for some time. Which architectures seems quite random and the failures usually are fixed with givebacks if they happen. The latest NMU has not done neither better nor worse than previous versions here. Nor was it expected to. Best regards, Mattias signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
