On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Rui Miguel P. Bernardo <rui.bernardo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Osamu Aoki <os...@debian.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:17:03PM +0100, Rui Miguel P. Bernardo wrote: >>> Hello list, >>> >>> let's say there is a bug in a stable package and that bug breaks the >>> program functionality. Later the fix was uploaded to unstable/testing >>> but never got in time for stable. For reference I'm talking about >>> http://bugs.debian.org/679657. >>> >>> I tried 2 ways to solve this: >>> >>> a) I've downloaded the stable version of the package, applied the >>> patch that fixed the problem and built a wheezy-backports package; >> >> What you described is the way we make stable updates. I have done this >> kind of things. >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=714759 >> >> As you can see, it takes a bit more than usual efforts. >> > > Yes, I think your example is exactly what needs to be done for > syncevolution. I saw that the distribution in debian/changelog in your > package upload is "stable", not -backports. That was one of my doubts, > thanks. > >> Is this something all stable user needs to be exposed? >> > > I think it is. The caldav/cardav sync functionality is currently > broken on stable, testing and unstable. It doesn't renders the package > unusable, but it is currently partially broken in all distributions. > > The situation, if I got it right, is that the patch exists in git but > no package was released since the commit that fixes the bug was > created in git. And because the next release of the package will > include an upstream updated version, this leads to a backport > solution, not a stable nmu upload, by the debian policy. The fix > already existed in git at the time of the debian wheezy release, but > no package was released back then, nor since then. I've just made a > git cherrypick and applied it for my local build. > >>> b) I've downloaded the maintainers git repository (unstable), revert >>> some commits and build a wheezy-backports; >> >> Usually, backport is simply recompiled version of "testing" package on >> stable platform (with only dpkg/debheler updated to backport). >> > > Ok. > >>> Backports exists for recent packages from unstable/testing that were >>> adapted and rebuilt for stable. What I did in a) is not that: I have >>> rebuilt a stable package and applied a patch. >> >> If you are doing it only for you, do it anyway. >> > > I do. I just would like to turn the time spent on the issue and the > fix into something usable for all. A little retribution to debian from > me, if that's possible. > >>> If a) is not a backport is it a nmu then? Should I build a) as a >>> stable nmu and try to search for a sponsor to upload it to stable? Can >>> this be done? >> >> This is not A or B question. 2 different criteria. >> > > Sorry for my writing... the question was really something like: if > I've downloaded the source package from stable and applied a > cherrypick to fix a bug. Now I clearly see that it is not a backport. > I was trying to ask for a confirmation that it is a "stable nmu", not > a backport. > > About the sponsor and the process to make a nmu I've found > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#nmu-guidelines > and > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#upload-stable > . The process seems complicated... > >>> Or, to have a valid backport of the package, I MUST make b), which is >>> to backport the testing/unstable package? >> >> testing. Please read backport docs. >> > > Ok, testing only. Thank you for clarifying. > >>> What I'd like is to have the stable version of the package fixed in >>> debian stable, where it is not working, not to have an upgraded >>> package from backports. >> >> Please read Debian policy on stable update. You also need to cordinate >> with the maintainer. You asking here indicate you have lots to learn. >> > > Yes, I've read about it since yesterday in the links above. > > That a big process here: email maintainer and "stable release team" > and report a bug against release.debian.org package, then get help and > a sponsor, not mess up in the way... That would require some time, but > it's feasible. I was wiling to do it. > > Although the above links suggest to try to contact directly with the > maintainer, I'm not very comfortable doing it. He didn't reply to the > bug report, why would he reply to me, an absolute stranger? And if he > doesn't reply, I don't see the "stable release team" accept the nmu > without the maintainers consent. Maybe I'm wrong? > > So I'm stuck here. I have a working package, ready, but I'm not sure > which distribution I should add to the debian/changelog (my opinion is > that it should be stable, since the source package was downloaded from > there), and I see that the process is a bit complicated... I guess > I'll just mail the bug report with my existing source package attached > to just save some time to whoever stumbles on bug #679657. > > What messes with me is that I think it is not the first time that I > see bugs in stable that were reported in testing and then do not get > fixed in stable but through backports (if anyone does them), not > through stable updates. IMHO I think that maybe this is not correct, > if that's a debian policy. > >>> I hope this email is not to confusing as my doubts :) I'd like to have >>> my doubts cleared because there is at least one more package >>> (avelsieve) I'd like to upload, via nmu or backports, depending on the >>> answers to my doubts. >> >> Good luck. >> >> Osamu > > I guess I'll just end up sending an email to the bug report with the > fixed source package attached. > > Thank you for you valuable reply, Osamu. > > Rui Miguel
I must be tired... your example is just perfect and is what I needed to try to fix the issue in stable. I'm going to do it in the next few days. Again, thank you Osamu. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAP1Yx5wnZtrTc1=OzBzHw=ts1QMj6Gco2DSeM=hodxoulft...@mail.gmail.com
