Request unblock sdl-stretch/0.3.1-3

Philipp Kern pkern at
Sat Jul 28 13:12:33 UTC 2012

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 02:02:47PM +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> 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.

As said we don't care. The package was unable to migrate by itself so that
exception is void.

> 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

I know that. And I'd have approved exactly that. That's also why I didn't say
"no" directly.

> 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.

I don't see how those ramblings relate to the two lines I objected to.
They don't explain them, they just say that "there was no bug report"
(yet). *Why* does one need to set "-pipe -Wall", *why* --as-needed
(whose prior absence might cause rdepends to rely on linkage to be
present), *why* --no-undefined. But then I see now that it hasn't got
any rdepends at all.

Also I do not see how reverting those changes make that package FTBFS
shortly after stable is released.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 588 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Pkg-sdl-maintainers mailing list