Request unblock sdl-stretch/0.3.1-3

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2012/7/28, Philipp Kern <pkern at debian.org>:
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 11:58:28AM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo
> wrote:
>> I would like to ask an unblock to sdl-stretch/0.3.1-3.
>>
>> There's an unblock already for sdl-stretch/0.3.1-2 because it was in
>> unstable before the freeze, but -2 failed to build in kfreebsd-i386
>> and thus it never migrated to testing:
>
> Yep, hence the unblock for -2 does not matter. There are changes in
> debian/rules
> that are not mentioned in the changelog (like the DEB_CFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND
> and
> DEB_LDFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND bits). Please revert those. You also introduced a
> whitespace issue in debian/rules.

These changes that you mention, were introduced the 26th of April for
0.3.1-2, well before the release, without any bug report being
submitted since then.  This is what it's already authorised to migrate
in the unblock.

The only changes introduced are the ones about architecture, 2 lines,
and the changelog.  In the case that I didn't attach the diff
recently, I do it now, as generated by:

  debdiff ../*/sdl-stretch_0.3.1-[23]*.dsc > /tmp/sdl-stretch_-2_to_-3.diff

If you don't feel comfortable about authorising -2 either, that's
another question.  It's been working apparently fine for 3+ months
now, without any bug report (then again it's not much used, so if
people find bugs maybe they're just ignoring it).

I've been working and spending time with this package with the hope
that the best possible version goes into unstable.  It was only built
in i386 arches, which are mostly obsolete in mainstream hardware,
since nobody had bothered to update this package in the past few
Debian releases since 2005 when amd64 was not even an accepted
architecture.

I think that reversing these changes is not a good idea, for reasons
explained in the changelog and these bugs reports, I won't repeat
myself.  So if you prefer to just remove the unblock, or the package
altogether for the next stable, I think that I prefer that solution to
producing a package that will get a FTBFS shortly after stable is
released.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sdl-stretch_-2_to_-3.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1959 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-sdl-maintainers/attachments/20120728/9293c10d/attachment.bin>