Bug#781292: unblock: binutils/2.25-6
On 04/13/2015 05:32 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: That wasn't really the point. The point was more about why not keep the existing patches untouched, but add a final diff that could possibly be reviewable. so you would feel better if I create my own diff to the current state of the branch, from the point where I stopped backporting patches? How would you review these? Well, the diff between what's currently in testing and what might replace it is what the release team cares about, so yes that would be helpful. Reviewing a rewrite is inherently more complex than reviewing a final incremental diff. and preparing that is inherently more complex and error prone. Feel free to do that for any security upload. Feel free to close this issue then as an unblock request. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#781292: unblock: binutils/2.25-6
On 04/13/2015 03:55 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: because upstream backport patches were done by component for the 2.25 branch, and don't have any equivalent to the single patches on the trunk. Feel free to prove me wrong. That wasn't really the point. The point was more about why not keep the existing patches untouched, but add a final diff that could possibly be reviewable. so you would feel better if I create my own diff to the current state of the branch, from the point where I stopped backporting patches? How would you review these? Please resist the urge to count lines of the diff no, you couldn't resist :-/ The size of course is important because as is it's basically an unreviewable change, so these are all changes related to security issues raised by the security team. It is this size. Could you explain how these can be made reviewable? If you look at the upstream commits, these are all done in sequence, so you can split these into patches done for one component. But again, how would that make review easier? which is why no one from the release team is looking at it, and why stands little chance for making it into jessie. at least good to know that the release team isn't looking into it, although a confirmation on their own would have been nice. Anyway it's not my call, I was just trying to help. thanks, it is appreciated. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#781292: unblock: binutils/2.25-6
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: That wasn't really the point. The point was more about why not keep the existing patches untouched, but add a final diff that could possibly be reviewable. so you would feel better if I create my own diff to the current state of the branch, from the point where I stopped backporting patches? How would you review these? Well, the diff between what's currently in testing and what might replace it is what the release team cares about, so yes that would be helpful. Reviewing a rewrite is inherently more complex than reviewing a final incremental diff. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#781292: unblock: binutils/2.25-6
On 04/13/2015 12:51 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: * Configure with --enable-deterministic-archives. Closes: #774429. #774429 is wishlist, so not appropriate at this point for jessie. --- binutils-2.25/debian/patches/series +++ binutils-2.25/debian/patches/series @@ -34,13 +34,3 @@ pr17742.diff -pr17531-1.diff -pr17531-2.diff -pr17531-3.diff -pr17531-4.diff -pr17531-5.diff -pr17531-6.diff -# these need some real backports ... -#pr17531-7.diff -#pr17531-8.diff -#pr17531-9.diff - +pr17531.diff Why couldn't the changes be applied incrementally to the existing patches rather than an entirely new 15k line patch? because upstream backport patches were done by component for the 2.25 branch, and don't have any equivalent to the single patches on the trunk. Feel free to prove me wrong. Please resist the urge to count lines of the diff no, you couldn't resist :-/ Please could you explain why it would make it easier for you to have any additional patches done by myself, not verified, to review on your own? Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#781292: unblock: binutils/2.25-6
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: because upstream backport patches were done by component for the 2.25 branch, and don't have any equivalent to the single patches on the trunk. Feel free to prove me wrong. That wasn't really the point. The point was more about why not keep the existing patches untouched, but add a final diff that could possibly be reviewable. Please resist the urge to count lines of the diff no, you couldn't resist :-/ The size of course is important because as is it's basically an unreviewable change, which is why no one from the release team is looking at it, and why stands little chance for making it into jessie. Anyway it's not my call, I was just trying to help. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#781292: unblock: binutils/2.25-6
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: * Configure with --enable-deterministic-archives. Closes: #774429. #774429 is wishlist, so not appropriate at this point for jessie. --- binutils-2.25/debian/patches/series +++ binutils-2.25/debian/patches/series @@ -34,13 +34,3 @@ pr17742.diff -pr17531-1.diff -pr17531-2.diff -pr17531-3.diff -pr17531-4.diff -pr17531-5.diff -pr17531-6.diff -# these need some real backports ... -#pr17531-7.diff -#pr17531-8.diff -#pr17531-9.diff - +pr17531.diff Why couldn't the changes be applied incrementally to the existing patches rather than an entirely new 15k line patch? Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#781292: unblock: binutils/2.25-6
package: release.debian.org user: release.debian@packages.debian.org usertags: unblock severity: high binutils/2.25-6 should be unblocked. backporting the security related fixes for PR binutils/17512, PR binutils/17531. Afaics no regressions in the binutils testsuite. Please resist the urge to count lines of the diff. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
