On 06/11/2014 11:37 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> Bugs open with patches (with help from upstream of MiniUPnPc): >> >> 0ad: #751224 >> megaglest: #751225 >> warzone2100: #751229 >> >> I have checked the build with newer MiniUPnP client, and no issues as >> far as I can tell. > > Great!
0ad has been uploaded with the fix. But megaglest & warzone2100 haven't. >>>> And then these seem to have unrelated FTBFS in Sid: >>>> >>>> - eiskaltdcpp: FTBFS (in eiskaltdcpp-qt/src/ChatEdit.cpp which doesn't >>>> have UPNP stuff) >>>> - litecoin: FTBFS (but package not in Testing anyway) >>> >>> Try to reproduce in a clean sid environment and report bugs with severity >>> serious. >> >> I have no time to do that right now, will try to do so later on. > > OK. once we know if those fail to build, and if so, once they are fixed or at > least fixes are available (especially for eiskaltdcpp which is in testing) > then > we should be able to proceed. litecoin will not move to Testing due to #733180, so I think we can ignore it. I tried rebuilding with a clean env (a sid cowbuilder), and eiskaltdcpp rebuilt fine even with both sid & experimental version of libminiupnpc. > After miniupnpc hits unstable, the bugs become RC as the packages fail to > build, > and IMHO direct uploads to DELAYED/2 would be fine. So, I think we're down to only megaglest & warzone2100 to be uploaded with the patch I provided, everything else seems ok. So, is the next course of action to upload miniupnpc to Sid now, then raise the severity of #751225 and #751229 to RC, then upload fixes to DELAYED/2? I'm guessing that later, I should request for binNMUs for all reverse dependencies, right? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53b81d85.2070...@debian.org
