[Openstack-devel] [Pkg-libvirt-maintainers] Why did you upload netcf 0.2.2 to SID after the freeze?

[Guido Günther]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:51:14AM -0700, Al Stone wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 05:48 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >On 11/19/2012 06:37 PM, Guido Günther wrote:
> >>It doesn't conflict with the version in experimental.
> >
> >That's correct, sorry. I miss-read version numbers.
> >
> >>Although a breaks
> >>would be prefereable over a conflicts. I'd prefer uploading 1.0.0 to
> >>sid rather than reverting the netcf change.
> >
> >Well, for me (and probably many others), it would have been better to
> >keep version 0.1.9-2 of netcf in Sid.
> >
> >
> >The current problem is isolated to installing libvirt0, because
> >libnetcf1 reverse dependencies are only libvirt0 (and python-libvirt).
> >However, apt-rdepends -r libvirt0 gives the following list:
> >
> >- condor (>= 7.8.2~dfsg.1-1+deb7u1)
> >- eucalyptus-nc (>= 3.1.0-9)
> >- gnome-boxes (>= 3.4.3+dfsg-1)
> >- libguestfs-tools (>= 1:1.18.10-1)
> >- libguestfs0 (>= 1:1.18.10-1)
> >- libsys-virt-perl (>= 0.9.12-2)
> >- libvirt-glib-1.0-0 (>= 0.0.8-1)
> >- libvirt-ocaml (>= 0.6.1.2-1)
> >- python-libvirt (>= 0.9.12-5)
> >- ruby-libvirt (>= 0.4.0-1)
> >- virt-top (>= 1.0.7-1+b1)
> >- virt-viewer (>= 0.5.4-1)
> >- xenwatch (>= 0.5.4-3)
> >
> >That's 13 packages, in which probably, an upload will have to be done in
> >Sid to fix who-knows-why. If you upload a new libvirt0 to Sid, then how
> >do you expect these to be updated in Wheezy thanks to an upload in Sid?
> >
> >In any way, an upload of a newer libvirt version in Sid should be
> >coordinated with the release team, especially during the freeze. And at
> >this point, I'd bet that they would (rightly) refuse.
> >
> >Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> >
> 
> My apologies; my only reason for uploading the new version was simply
> that I had time to do it (which I have not had very often lately).  I
> simply forgot that we were under a freeze.  There is no critical reason
> for fixing it, and we could go back to the earlier version if that's
> what makes most sense.
> 
> That being said, the latest version is a qualitative improvement over
> the older one.  Is it enough to justify redoing the 13 other packages?
> I am not entirely convinced; I think the freeze is more important right
> now.

Given that netcf as well as libvirt in experimental are big improvements
bugfixwise (not even feature eise) and that it's unlikely that we do
have to rebuild the 13 packages above (since libvirt is binary
compatible and they don't depend on libnl explicitly) and that updates
can happen through p-u I wonder if that's the best way forward?

However I'll way with the libvirt upload until there' some agreement.
Cheers,
 -- Guido

> 
> Again, my apologies; I have to say I just wasn't paying attention :(...
> 
> -- 
> Ciao,
> al
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Al Stone                                      Alter Ego:
> E-mail: ahs3 at ahs3.net                         Debian Developer
>  -or-                                         http://www.debian.org
> E-mail: ahstone at comcast.net                   ahs3 at debian.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>