[xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#766884: libxml2 broken in sid for months already

[Aron Xu]

Control: severity 766884 serious

Please don't change the severity level and no ping-pong game please.

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog at debian.org> wrote:
> Control: severity 766884 important
>
> Hi Aron,
>
> please keep me in copy as I'm not subscribed to
> debian-xml-sgml-pkgs at lists.alioth.debian.org... I just discovered your
> reply by chance.
>
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Aron Xu wrote:
>> Let's reopen #766884 for tracking, it's not really fixed, but just
>> avoided. Unfortunately #781232 is opened. I would like to block this
>> version to testing as it's not the proper way of fixing the problem
>> (but it is indeed the most straightforward way of avoiding it).
>
> Why don't you want to let this version in testing?
>
> The release team has made it clear that they prefer to have the same
> version in unstable and in testing... and the version in unstable is not
> worse than the version in testing.
>

It's not a reason that you just revert back to an older version
because it's easy to do so. If you want to make it the same version,
choose the harder but more correct way as libxml2 is not a trivial
package with low impact.

>> The proper way of working this bug around would be bisecting and
>> patching which is quite time consuming. I haven't yet managed to get
>> it done and help is welcomed, but if no one step up I'll do it
>> eventually (or cross finger for finding a proper fix, :D).
>
> Someone already did this that in the upstream bug tracker:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=737840
>
> So if you want you can try to revert this commit:
> https://git.gnome.org/browse/libxml2/commit/?id=a16eb968075a82ec33b2c1e77db8909a35b44620
>
> But Daniel Veillard made it clear that this commit
> was not at fault, it was only making the problem visible:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=737840#c2
>
> So yes, maybe switching to 1.9.2 and reverting this
> one would be better until a proper fix is available.
>

Yep.

> But this bug should not prevent the migration of the package to testing
> since the package in sid does not exhibit the problem currently. So
> I'm reducing its severity to important in particular since you do not seem
> to want to close it until a proper fix is available upstream.
>

I don't want to close it, nor I want make this version to testing, so
please don't lower the severity, as said above.

> I just added another commit on request of Julien Cristau.  Whatever you
> decide, you need to make a new upload so that the "icu" migration can be
> completed in unstable.
>

Thanks for that, :)

Cheers,
Aron

> Cheers,
> --
> Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
>
> Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
> Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/