On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 17:34 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: >> Adam C Powell IV wrote: >> > On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 17:57 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 12:23:53PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 20:08 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: >> >>>> Adam C Powell IV wrote: >> >>>>> Greetings, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I am writing to request that scotch 5.0.6-1 (uploaded 7/21) and libmesh >> >>>>> 0.6.2-2 (uploaded 7/25) be included in the Lenny release. Scotch is in >> >>>>> the NEW queue because this release added shared libraries. The libmesh >> >>>>> release closes a lot of bugs, and uses the scotch shared libraries, so >> >>>>> it is in Dep-Wait state waiting for the new scotch package. >> >>>> libmesh unblocked, scotch can only be processed once it's accepted in >> >>>> unstable: so no decision on scotch yet. Please poke us again once it has >> >>>> been accepted in unstable. >> >>> *Poke* (Scotch accepted, is in unstable, but marked as frozen on >> >>> bjorn.haxx.se). >> >> 257 files changed, 10405 insertions(+), 5707 deletions(-) >> >> >> >> I'm afraid this is too much to review, so I'm not going to unblock it... >> > >> > Wow, even though I uploaded it six days before the freeze? Sorry to >> > hear that. In my past experience, new version upgrades have taken 3-4 >> > days to get through NEW, not two weeks... >> >> Well, the freeze month was announced in february, not just a couple of >> weeks before it happened... > > In Marc's February message: "Please don't wait with uploads for the last > day before the freeze, thanks," which I didn't do. (Most of my other > packages were release-ready by early June.) And I read the message from > Adeodato Simó on July 22 as "Don't panic, if you upload before the > freeze you'll get in". > > Sounds like the difference is between "uploaded" and "in unstable" based > on inconsistency between the two messages. My mistake, but an honest > one. Today is still not that long after the freeze, is it not > reasonable to have an exception? > >> > Why isn't getting through the NEW queue sufficient review? >> >> Because the NEW queue check is to check if there is nothing wrong >> regarding FTP Master and legal rules to have the package in the archive >> (unstable). >> >> A freeze exception is to get a package from unstable to testing... > > Right, but what's the difference in quality standards? I guess I should > RTFM... Again, seems a little arbitrary given the upload date. > >> > If this decision stands, I'll need to re-upload libmesh to change its >> > scotch dependency in order to fix this. >> >> Why, do the packages in testing not work? > > The new libmesh closes seven bugs, including broken examples, support > for I/O in only one format which requires a non-free visualization > system (GMV, which is not in Debian), and missing links to scotch libs > -- which would require scotch shared libs to fix. The new scotch closes > three bugs, but one is "new upstream" so that doesn't count, another is > lintian fixes, and the third is shared libs. > > So what should I do now? > 1. Do nothing, let all the bugs in testing enter the lenny release > 2. Do nothing, get a freeze exception for the new scotch, which > would let libmesh go in > 3. Upload scotch 5.0.1.dfsg-1lenny1 (which needs to go through the > NEW queue, but the changes are much smaller than 5.0.6) and > libmesh 0.6.2.dfsg-1lenny1 depending on it > 4. Upload libmesh 0.6.2.dfsg-1lenny1 depending on the old scotch > with only static libs, but closing the other six bugs in libmesh
I think Luk is right, that this is quite a big change, which we should have uploaded much before than 6 days before the freeze. On the other hand a broken package in Lenny is a shame, so anything from the above 1.-4. should happen. If you ping me, I'll help you test the package in case of 3. or 4.. Ondrej
