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

[Ola Lundqvist]

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

PS.
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).
DS.

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>