Re: GnomeMeeting 0.12.2 versus 0.85.1
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 11:19:49AM +0100, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> Quoting Ola Lundqvist (opal@debian.org):
>
> > > Now I too am wondering why 0.85 never made it into stable / testing.
> > Probably because it was unable to build on some archs that it has
> > been built for earlier.
>
> Well.. 0.12.2-1 is in testing/stable now, buildd lists:
>
> | 0.12.2-1 (powerpc) (latest build at Dec 9 21:34: successful)
> | 0.12.2-1 (alpha) (latest build at Dec 9 23:14: failed)
> | 0.12.2-1 (ia64) (latest build at Dec 9 23:41: successful)
> | 0.12.2-1 (hppa) (latest build at Jan 8 00:00: failed)
> | 0.12.2-1 (s390) (latest build at Dec 10 04:55: successful)
> | 0.12.2-1 (arm) (latest build at Dec 11 19:20: successful)
> | 0.12.2-1 (sparc) (latest build at Dec 10 16:16: successful)
> | 0.12.2-1 (mipsel) (latest build at Jan 16 12:25: failed)
> | 0.12.2-1 (m68k) (latest build at Feb 9 04:31: successful)
>
> Three failed builds, rest successful.
> For 0.85.1-6, latest Gnome1 version ever released:
>
> | 0.85.1-6 (ia64) (latest build at Jun 10 17:39: successful)
> | 0.85.1-6 (alpha) (latest build at Jun 10 06:04: failed)
> | 0.85.1-6 (s390) (latest build at Jun 10 07:20: successful)
> | 0.85.1-6 (powerpc) (latest build at Jun 10 06:25: successful)
> | 0.85.1-6 (arm) (latest build at Jun 10 17:40: successful)
> | 0.85.1-6 (m68k) (latest build at Jun 15 01:21: successful)
> | 0.85.1-6 (hppa) (latest build at Jul 11 11:30: successful)
>
> One fail, and two misses (sparc & mipsel).
> Why wasn't 0.85.1 accepted into stable then?
>
> Where can I read about what exact criteria a package has to comply to,
> to get accepted into testing?
The criteria is quite simple. All these must be fullfilled.
* Upload at least X days old (where X=10 for a urgency low).
* No RC bugs filed against the package.
* No build failures for an arch where the package has previously been successfully
built.
* Must not depend on a package that is not in the distribution (per arch).
> > > I might have a clue tho. Since $upstream switched to Gnome2 with v0.9x
> > > releases of GnomeMeeting while I was still packaging v0.8x releases of
> > > GnomeMeeting, I decided it would not be nice to force all users of
> > > GnomeMeeting to switch to the Gnome2 version while Gnome2 at that time
> > > was very unstable and expirimental, so I created a new package called
> > > gnomemeeting2, which surprisingly brought people the Gnome2 version.
> > This sounds more like an indication on why it should made it into
> > testing and stable.
>
> To me too. But sadly it didn't get included. And now I have an angry
> upstream and a lot of sad users. We're putting up an 'unofficial
> apt-source' on gnomemeeting.org though, but it's not the way to go (TM).
Well I would find it hard to get into stable. You can talk to the stable
release manager though.
> > > [ maybe get 0.85.1 in stable & testing ]
> > In stable would probably not be accepted. Testing should be possible
> > just fix the current issues that hold it back. :)
>
> Now you're talking about me getting the 0.9x version of gnomemeeting
> into testing. This seems like an impossible task for me, if you take a
> close look at:
>
> http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=gnomemeeting
>
> You can see that the reason why gnomemeeting isn't accepted relies on
> the fact that tons of dependencies are unavailable at other
> architectures.
Well it is just one lib libopenh323-dev that needs to be fixed. The hurd
and sh arches is not very important ones because woody was never released
for them (as far as i know).
> > > I myself, and Damien think it's better for Debian to have v0.85.x.
> > Or the one in unstable. :)
>
> That's almost impossible and would not help that much. For me and Damien
> it's more the problem that stable comes with an outdated 0.12.2 release
> while there have been other releases in the meanwhile and we do not
> understand why 0.85 never made it into the current stable release of
> Debian.
I suspect that it can be the libopenh323 lib that caused it not to
be included.
Regards,
// Ola
> Kind regards,
> Sander.
>
> --
> | Hey.. I'm done talkin'. Now check out my pretty!
> | 1024D/08CEC94D - 34B3 3314 B146 E13C 70C8 9BDB D463 7E41 08CE C94D
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: