Your message dated Sat, 20 Feb 2016 22:07:10 +0000
with message-id <20160220220710.gm6...@betterave.cristau.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#783835: jessie-pu: package repmgr/2.0-3
has caused the Debian Bug report #783835,
regarding jessie-pu: package repmgr/2.0-3
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.)
--
783835: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=783835
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: jessie
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu
The issue reported in #781753 is very easy to be fixed.
There is an one-line upstream patch to solve it.
https://github.com/2ndQuadrant/repmgr/commit/e40b9db0a6e2cbe56df40a6fda115858cf3c790f
Without the fix the pg_logical/snapshots directory must be manually created
after the clone before starting postgres.
I recommend to include it in first jessie point release.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 8.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 19:16:17 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed
>
> On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 18:46 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 18:30 +0200, Marco Nenciarini wrote:
> > > Package: release.debian.org
> > > Followup-For: Bug #783835
> > >
> > > Attached you can see the debdiff of the proposed package.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > > For the records, the 3.0.1-4 version that is stuck in NEW queue,
> > > contains some quite invasive changes both to the software and the
> > > packaging, so it cannot be considered for stable updates.
> >
> > Indeed. I wasn't suggesting that, just making a note that the fix to
> > unstable (which we'd want in place before accepting the stable update)
> > was in NEW, in case someone else (or even myself later on) went looking
> > for it.
>
> 3.0.5 is now in unstable, with a change that looks equivalent.
>
> Assuming that I'm correct that 3.0.5 resolves the issue reported, please
> fix the metadata for #781753 to indicate that and feel free to go ahead
> with the upload.
>
Looks like that's not happening. Closing.
Cheers,
Julien
--- End Message ---
