[Openstack-devel] Bug#685251: Fixing Debian bug #685251 for the ryu plugin in Openstack

Ola Lundqvist ola at inguza.com
Sat Dec 29 08:57:04 UTC 2012

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

Thanks for your consideration.

// Ola

I made a mistake in the analysis of -6 version. It was not uploaded
before the freeze, it was checked in to git before that but was
never uploaded until much later (by Loic).

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:39:20PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/14/2012 05:30 AM, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hi Thomas and Julien
> > 
> > The 2012.1-6 upload was done before the freeze
> That isn't right. The freeze date was the 30th of June, while the
> package was uploaded by Loic on the 6th of July. See the PTS:
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/q/quantum.html
> Though your changes were committed to our Git on Alioth before the
> freeze (on the 28th of June).
> > and the plan was to have
> > it included in testing before the freeze. Apparently that did not
> > happen. I was under the impression that the freeze would be to uploads
> > after the freeze, not to the packages that had not yet done the
> > transition. Apparently I was wrong, and if that have cause this problem,
> > I'm sorry for that.
> You were right, but the package was uploaded *after* the freeze. Which
> is the sole reason why it didn't migrate to Wheezy (well, that, and the
> fact you didn't ask for an unblock...).
> > We did not have any bug report about the issues for that change. Instead
> > I did those changes in order to solve problems that were similar to
> > issues in other packages. It was more of a cleanup work in order to
> > avoid bug reports in the future. We did have issues with the conflicts,
> > replaces, breaks in other packages and if I remember correctly they were
> > important also for this package. It is some time since I did this so I
> > do not remember all the details.
> I do agree that the provides/conflicts/replaces/breaks fixes should be
> in Wheezy.
> > I think the 2012.1-6 upload was a good thing for the package, especially
> > for upgrade from earlier versions. That is however not such a big
> > problem for this release as it has not been part of stable before. It
> > may be an issue for later releases though.
> > 
> > From a release team perspective I understand that you do not want large
> > last minute changes to packages. I can not motivate the change to be
> > that strong to be forced in.
> > 
> > If you want I can make a proposed patch based on the changes Thomas made
> > for 2012.1-7 and void the changes for 2012.1-6.
> YES! Please do so and deal with the unblock for your changes. :)
> It by the way would be nice and save time if the release team was
> telling what part of the changes are rejected and for what reason.
> 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  /
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: backport-of-solution-for-685251-2012-12-29.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 19727 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/openstack-devel/attachments/20121229/a17c6f5b/attachment-0003.patch>

More information about the Openstack-devel mailing list