Bug#731547: Accepted upstream

[Mattias Ellert]

tis 2015-06-23 klockan 15:58 +0200 skrev Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> 
> I'm really unhappy with this NMU.

This bug was reported 18 months ago, after which not much happened.
This of course was not so surprising since at the time the knowledge of
the source of the problem was sketchy and inconclusive. When I report a
bug I prefer to do so with a bit more information, but at the time I
was not able to analyse it further.

The patch that fixes the bug was attached 8 months ago, and again not
much happened for some time. Neither here nor in the upstream bug. This
I did find very surprising and increasingly frustrating.

Since the two-line, very non-invasive patch was created there has been
4 updates uploaded to Debian unstable, but for some reason the patch
was not integrated in neither of them.

I have on several occasions offered to create an NMU fixing this bug.
Every time - except for this last time - some objection was raised.
These objections mostly said that the bug should be addressed upstream
first. It is of course a good thing to try to fix a bug upstream, but
having the bug fixed upstream is not a prerequisite for fixing the bug
in Debian.

Although I could have argued that the bug not having been fixed
upstream was not a sufficient argument for rejecting the idea of an
NMU, I - in the interest of not stepping on anyone's toes - decided to
wait.

My impression about this bug is that it has induced a lot of emotions
in some people, to the extent that I can not understand. Especially
some of the comments in the upstream bug report were quite inflammatory
and at least to me sounded like trolling attempts to trigger a flame
war. The most outrageous comments I simply ignored.

I somehow by reporting this bug seem to have found myself being caught
in the crossfire in a long-lasting conflict that was not my conflict.
It was not a very nice experience.

After the patch was finally accepted upstream I again asked when this
would be fixed in Debian. When there was no reply I again offered to do
an NMU. Since there was no objection I uploaded one.

> Anyway, that's happened now... Your upload failed to build on a few 
> architectures...
> 
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=glib2.0&ver=2.44.1-1.1
> 
> Emilio

After givebacks the builds have succeeded, except for the two kfreebsd
builds. The kfreebsd builds have consistently failed the previous last
8 versions (2.45.2-1, 2.45.1-2, 2.45.1-1, 2.44.1-1, 2.44.0-3, 2.44.0-2,
2.44.0-1, 2.43.92-1), so that they should suddenly work for this NMU is
not a reasonable idea.

Looking back at the buildd history, the glib2.0 package have failed to
build 1, 2 or - occasionally - 3 architectures (in addition to the
kfreebsd builds mentioned above) for most new uploaded versions for
some time. Which architectures seems quite random and the failures
usually are fixed with givebacks if they happen. The latest NMU has not
done neither better nor worse than previous versions here. Nor was it
expected to.

Best regards,

	Mattias
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnome-maintainers/attachments/20150629/a0b9ef94/attachment.sig>