[Debian-olpc-devel] Bug#485233: Path still broken in 23-2

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Wed Dec 3 22:15:35 UTC 2008

Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 10:18:49PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:

>On Wednesday 03 December 2008 20:06, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>Jonas, you've seen my mails to d-release@ about sugar 0.82 in lenny? 

I see it now.

There is something wrong somewhere: I do not receive olpc-devel@ mails 

>> I do not agree that we should avoid activity releases newer than 
>> upstream releases, as long as they work properly with 0.82.
>> What made you resolve Calculate 0.25 as belonging to Sugar 0.83?
><h01ger> [12:18:57] does http://sugarlabs.org/go/DevelopmentTeam/Source_Code 
>show the latest version for 0.82 while for example 
>http://dev.laptop.org/pub/sugar/sources/Calculate/ also has 24+25.tgz, which 
>are for 0.83? (and 23 is the latest for 0.82?)
><morgs> [12:19:36] h01ger: yes, those are the 0.82 versions

Cannot parse that. All are for 0.82 or what?

Isn't it documented properly somewhere?

Anyway, I gave up waiting for your response and posted 0.25-2 a moment 
ago (right before I received this email).

I see no need for adding an epoch. I'd say we request 0.25-2 unblocked 
for Lenny. Works fine for me (except for localization that I've filed 
a bugreport about a moment ago).

>> No, I have not yet released 0.25-1, as it turns out there are more 
>> problems. I suspect your 0.23-2 release also is broken[1]!
>why do you suspect that?

Because of recent changes to sugar-toolkit, affecting Sugar activity 

>the changelog and more importantly the debdiff to 0.23-1 looked good.

Did you compile the package in an up-to-date sid chroot?

In what path was the activity installed?

Did the package include locale files?

>> I really would appreciate if you'd warn here on the list _before_ 
>> releasing.
>Ack. With how much time in advance? Is a commit to git master enough 
>warning? (Seriously :)

I notice now that indeed you posted a warning.  Problem was (and still 
is) that I received no emails (only) sent til olpc-devel@ since nov 29.

>> Now you force me to reprioritize my evening :-/ 
>No. a.) you're a volunteer, end of the story.

I fail to understand your argument.

>b.) it's called unstable for a reason.

"Unstable" refers to the distribution, not the package. Unstable 
packages should only be uploaded to experimental, if at all!

>c.) i'd be happy to take over, but I'm refraining now as I assume you 
>are on it. (unless I here otherwise of course.)

Great that you start becoming active now.

No. You do *not* simply take over the work done for a year without your 
active participation.

You are very welcome to work together with Luke and me (and any others 
chiming in) using on the existing packages, using the current Git+CDBS 
packaging style.

You are also very welcome to package additional activity packages using 
current Git+CDBS packaging style.

You can also package additional activities using whatever alternative 
packaging style you prefer yourself. I won't recommend that, but if you 
really must (use another packaging style), I won't (and can't) stop you.

>there are more packages broken, how do we proceed with them? (btw, 
>0.23-1 also FTBFS is current sid for me, so I plan on rebuilding them 
>all (*), to see if they can still build.)

How does 0.23-1 FTBFS?

Does 0.25-2 FTBFS too?

  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the Debian-olpc-devel mailing list