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

Ola Lundqvist ola at inguza.com
Sat Dec 29 13:22:01 UTC 2012

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  /

More information about the Openstack-devel mailing list