Your message dated Sat, 30 Jan 2021 20:32:37 +0100
with message-id <8eec166e-fad6-517c-b937-00746d39a...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#980847: pre-approval: qutebrowser/2.0.0-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #980847,
regarding pre-approval: qutebrowser/2.0.1-2
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.)
--
980847: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980847
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please pre-approve the package qutebrowser/2.0.0-1.
[ Reason ]
A major upstream release (2.0.0) of qutebrowser is going to be released
soon (currently aimed at early next week, i.e. around 26th of January
2021).
While it certainly counts as a "large change", it is a leaf package and
risk is believed to be small (see below).
[ Impact ]
Users on Debian Stable will continue to use the previous release series
(1.14.x) for the next couple of years. Since there are some changes
around the names of commands/settings, this introduces an undesirable
gap between users on Debian Stable and users on other distributions
(many of qutebrowser's users are on rolling-release distributions).
This gap would make it more difficult both for upstream and the affected
users to give/take support, share configuration files, etc.
[ Tests ]
qutebrowser has a big automated testsuite with over 9000 (sic) tests.
Note that many of those result from parametrization (running the same
test with different sets of inputs), but still this reduces the
potential for regressions. Upstream also uses other measures to reduce
defects where appropriate, such as type annotations.
A part of its users is using it directly from its git repository, so
that any remaining issues with changes usually get reported and fixed
quickly.
[ Risks ] qutebrowser is a leaf package, so no coordination with other
package(r)s is required. It is also a desktop application - while those
certainly shouldn't be held to lower standards, the impact (or need for
additional "preparation time" for users) might be smaller compared to
e.g. a server application.
There are many changes upstream:
$ git diff --stat v1.14.1...master
540 files changed, 12654 insertions(+), 10182 deletions(-)
Excluding tests/scripts/...:
$ git diff --stat v1.14.1...master -- qutebrowser/
199 files changed, 5189 insertions(+), 5794 deletions(-)
However, the bulk of those changes are a result of relatively boring
changes upstream, such as dropping support for old Python/Qt versions.
The upstream changelog is probably a better indication:
https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/blob/master/doc/changelog.asciidoc#v200-unreleased
[ Checklist ]
(N/A because this is a pre-approval)
[ Other info ]
The upstream maintainer is on Cc for this bug and is willing to work
with the package maintainers for this, where needed. If (despite all
measures) regressions would be introduced, a potential patch release
would happen as soon as possible. Patch releases are done from a
dedicated v2.0.x maintenance branch, keeping care to keep changes as
small as possible and without any non-bugfix changes.
The release also introduces a new optional dependency on the Python
"adblock" module for better ad blocking. It is currently not packaged
for Debian and doing so is outside of the scope of this request. If the
dependency is unavailable, qutebrowser will fall back on the same
hosts-based adblocking it used before this release.
So please pre-approve qutebrowser/2.0.0-1.
For Debian's qutebrowser package, the qutebrowser package maintainers
and upstream.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (600, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'),
(500, 'buildd-unstable'), (110, 'experimental'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1,
'buildd-experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: sysvinit (via /sbin/init)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Axel,
On 23-01-2021 02:26, Axel Beckert wrote:
> While it certainly counts as a "large change", it is a leaf package and
> risk is believed to be small (see below).
With the understanding that autoremovals remain on during the whole
freeze, we may manually remove RC buggy packages at any time and that
after the soft freeze starts, removed packages are not allowed to enter
bullseye again, this request is basically a maintainer call.
Go ahead if you think the risk is acceptable for your package.
Paul
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
