[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#844100: marked as done (transition: ppl)



Your message dated Sat, 3 Dec 2016 12:33:38 +0100
with message-id <ab564e65-f7e2-4549-9add-ff93302b6a8c@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#844100: transition: ppl
has caused the Debian Bug report #844100,
regarding transition: ppl
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 owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
844100: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=844100
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

Hi Release Team,

I noticed yesterday that ppl has two RC bugs and was removed from
testing. I would like to take over the package and fix it, but one of
the RC bugs (#811825) is best fixed by updating to the new upstream
version, which requires a small library transition. Since the
debian-devel-announce@l.d.o mail from November 5 said the transition
freeze is only for "transitions that involve a large number of packages",
I'd thought I'd ask if we can still do this transition.

I already created a package of ppl 1.2 that fixes both RC bugs. ppl has
two reverse dependencies, which were of course both removed from testing
because of ppl:

apron
cloog-ppl

I checked that they both build without changes against the updated ppl
package.

If it's too late for the transition, we'll have to see if we can fix
#811825 by applying a patch that does not require a transition.

Thanks,
Tobias

Ben file:

title = "ppl";
is_affected = .depends ~ "libppl13v5" | .depends ~ "libppl14";
is_good = .depends ~ "libppl14";
is_bad = .depends ~ "libppl13v5";

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 01/12/16 23:46, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 30/11/16 00:30, Tobias Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/12/2016 07:58 PM, Tobias Hansen wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2016 02:49 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>>> Control: tags -1 confirmed
>>>>
>>>> On 12/11/16 15:02, Tobias Hansen wrote:
>>>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>>>> Severity: normal
>>>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>>>> Usertags: transition
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Release Team,
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed yesterday that ppl has two RC bugs and was removed from
>>>>> testing. I would like to take over the package and fix it, but one of
>>>>> the RC bugs (#811825) is best fixed by updating to the new upstream
>>>>> version, which requires a small library transition. Since the
>>>>> debian-devel-announce@l.d.o mail from November 5 said the transition
>>>>> freeze is only for "transitions that involve a large number of packages",
>>>>> I'd thought I'd ask if we can still do this transition.
>>>>>
>>>>> I already created a package of ppl 1.2 that fixes both RC bugs. ppl has
>>>>> two reverse dependencies, which were of course both removed from testing
>>>>> because of ppl:
>>>>>
>>>>> apron
>>>>> cloog-ppl
>>>>>
>>>>> I checked that they both build without changes against the updated ppl
>>>>> package.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's too late for the transition, we'll have to see if we can fix
>>>>> #811825 by applying a patch that does not require a transition.
>>>>
>>>> Since this package is not in testing, and because of the small number of rdeps,
>>>> there isn't a big risk of regressions wrt current testing... so please go ahead.
>>>>
>>>> Emilio
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot for granting this exception! ppl 1.2 is now in NEW.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Tobias
>>>
>>
>> The package is now in unstable. I think the only thing that is missing
>> now is a binNMU for apron. cloog-ppl already got an upload to build
>> against ppl 1.2.
> 
> I scheduled that.

This is done.

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---

Reply to: