[Pkg-openldap-devel] Revisiting the TODO list for 2.4.7

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 03:09:20PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> 1) get symbol versioning support into the package for libldap, so that we
>>    cut down the segfaulting with partial upgrades

> This is in place now; there are some concerns about the libldap_r vs.
> libldap handling, and the patch needs work before being pushed upstream, but
> it should be suitable for release to unstable (and lenny, as necessary).

Agreed.

>> 2) make a decision on whether db4.6 is ready for switching now, or if we
>>    should be waiting for resolution of the NPTL yield() issue described in
>>    #421946 before making the jump

> Looks like the answer here is that it's not ready yet, so we should stay
> with db4.2.

I'm of two minds about this, but yes, that seems like the more
conservative choice and we can change db implementations in unstable
later.

>> 4) upgrade testing

> I know Russ has done some of these tests, and I have as well.  I believe
> all the issues reported so far have been resolved in svn.

I've only done upgrade testing with little fake databases, but I'm
realistically probably not going to have the time to do more immediately
and it shouldn't hold up the 2.4 release into unstable.  I'll try to do
more serious testing using Stanford's LDAP database well beofre the lenny
release.

>> 5) install testing

> Seems to work ok for me; anyone else have a different assessment?

I haven't yet tested your new fixes, but you shouldn't wait for me.  It
looks good to me.

>> 6) decide what other package handling, if any, needs to be put in place in
>>    response to slurpd being dropped (I guess someone who's used syncrepl
>>    should provide input here, since I have not)

> Patch for this is on the list.  So once any problems with this patch are
> worked out, the original todo list seems done, or at least done enough
> to support an upload to unstable.

Agreed.

> But we also have the question of the updated debconf templates.  As you
> can see from my latest post, I'm really not happy with the proposed
> changes as they stand, and I don't believe they should be included in an
> upload to unstable as-is.  I'm willing to wait for us to converge on a
> set of templates before the 2.4.7 upload, but I don't think we should
> wait for updated debconf translations before getting more eyeballs on
> the packages; in any case the latest patch for syncrepl necessarily
> brings in a new debconf template which would significantly delay the
> upload if we had to wait for all translations to be up-to-date.

> So I propose that if there are no other issues turned up in the
> meantime, we do the 2.4.7-1 upload as soon as the debconf template
> discussion is finished.  Is this agreeable?

Yup, works for me.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>