[Openstack-devel] Bug#685251: Fixing Debian bug #685251 for the ryu plugin in Openstack
ola at inguza.com
Sat Dec 29 13:22:43 UTC 2012
Sorry. Forgot to attach the new diff.
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 02:22:01PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi Thomas (and Julien)
> Thanks for the ckeck. See answers below.
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 06:38:20PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 12/29/2012 04:57 PM, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > Hi Julien
> > >
> > > I have now finally got enough time to actually do this backport.
> > > I have attached the proposal as a diff file.
> > > If you accept this change I will upload it to testing-proposed-updates.
> > >
> > > I do not know if this kind of change requires work from ftp-masters
> > > as it actually removes binary packages.
> > >
> > > This time the change is minimal and do not include anything from
> > > 2012.1-6.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your consideration.
> > >
> > > // Ola
> > Hi,
> > There's quite a few problems in your diff file. The next 3 points would
> > be what I believe the release team would answer, the last point is
> > specific to the Openstack packaging team.
> > * Could you please send again the debdiff, but *WITHOUT* your *~ backup
> > files? Probably you should have carefully read it before replying like
> > this to the release team who is already overloaded with Debian tasks.
> > That's the kind of joke they don't really like...
> Doh! I thought I did that before generating the diff. Sorry for that.
> New file attached.
> > * I don't think there's the need to use testing-proposed-updates.
> > Uploading to SID will be just fine, as anyway, we haven't uploaded
> > anything newer in SID which would pose a problem, and that we use
> > Experimental for Folsom. (in other words: nothing prevents uploading to
> > SID, and when we upload there it's in the hope it migrates to testing)
> No that won't work because the changes in -6 should remain. It is a good
> change. And no I do not want to first upload a -7 version and than a new
> -8 with the changes in -6 because then I have to have a very complicated
> replaces rules in the control file which we really should avoid.
> > * There is already a version -6 in SID. So you should really upload
> > 2012.1-7, not 2012.1-5wheezy1, which is the scheme for security uploads
> > in Debian Stable.
> Same answer as above. I have followed the instructions in
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html chapter
> "Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the testing
> distribution and a running number, like 1.2squeeze1 for the first upload
> through testing-proposed-updates of package version 1.2."
> This is just as valid for testing uploads as for stable uploads.
> > * Our Git already contains entries for -6 and -7. Please use that,
> > modifying the candidate version -7, and do not get out of sync with our
> > Git please, otherwise it's going to be a nightmare!
> The -7 version is what I have used to backport from. I have taken your
> changes and re-done them for testing only.
> I do understand that we should have unstable development in git.
> The reason I have made a branch here is to have this fix for testing only.
> Same reason as above.
> I can make a branch in git as well if you want. I do not see the point
> in that though. I'll upload -7 at the same time. I mistakenly thought
> it was already uploaded by you. Sorry for that.
> > Also, this issue has been pending for 6 months! I do appreciate that you
> > finally decide to work on it, even that late. But I continue to refuse
> > to take the responsibility for it. The main mistake, IMO, was to leave
> > the issue as-is, doing nothing to fix it. So you and Loic should really
> > take the responsibility for the upload, and make sure it's in a correct
> > shape *in time* for the release. I surely would feel bad if Quantum had
> > to be removed from Wheezy. Please don't leave this pending again.
> I do not want to start a flamewar but I do want to explain what has
> happend. Please take what I write below just as facts. I'm sorry for
> this issue being pending.
> First of all it is 3.5 months (not 6), secondly I have asked about your
> opintion on this matter without response and that explains more than 2 months.
> 18 Aug: Bug reported
> 24 Aug: Explained the situation and asked about your opinion.
> 7 Oct: Asked again as a reminder.
> 01 Nov: You responded.
> 01 Nov: I responded that it was not fixed in -6.
> 09 Nov: You provide the diff.
> today: I provide the backport.
> But yes it has been pending and I'm sorry for that. Life have
> been a bit busy lately though.
> // Ola
> > Cheers,
> > Thomas
> --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ----
> / ola at inguza.com Annebergsslingan 37 \
> | opal at debian.org 654 65 KARLSTAD |
> | http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
> \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
--- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ----
/ ola at inguza.com Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal at debian.org 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6034 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Openstack-devel