On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:30:14 intrigeri wrote: > Dmitry Smirnov wrote (12 Dec 2012 01:16:15 GMT) : > > There were no reply from maintainer in #688574 so perhaps it would > > be better to set Daniel as owner of this bug... > > Please do it if you feel it's useful.
Waht would you do? > > A full new upstream version was uploaded to unstable since > then, so an update in testing would now have to go through t-p-u. Thank you, I didn't notice that new libdvdread was uploaded. > Given the crash fixed by 4.2.0+20120521-3 has severity normal, > I'm unsure it's worth the effort. I'm not sure if "normal" is an adequate severity for crash. For example "handbrake" (not in testing) was unusable (crashing on DVD open) with libdvdread prior to 4.2.0+20120521-3. > > Dmitry, you filed the unblock request that is now outdated, > what do you think? We can close it if you think that's the right thing to do. What else we can do? > > > IMHO even if fix is not implemented properly it is still prevent certain > > crashes which can't be worse than what's in testing right now. > > I'm not sure this would be worse than what's in testing right now, but > let's acknowledge that the fix has potential for future regressions, > and does not only bring good: using internal implementation details of > other libraries results in code that can break without notice, in the > future, when the depended upon library is updated. I'm with you. Indeed that's choosing between bad and the worse. However decision making here is simple -- on one hand we have a certain (confirmed) crash when on the other we have potential for regressions that may or may not be manifested. To me crash is too serious to ignore because the whole functionality of the package is compromised. Regards, Dmitry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
