Bug#924974: unblock (pre-approval) or RM: epiphany-browser/3.32.1.2-2

[Ivo De Decker]

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 09:49:25PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 unblock (pre-approval) or RM: epiphany-browser/3.32.1.2-2
> 
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 09:42:58 +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > According to upstream, 3.32.0 is not suitable and we should be using
> > 3.32.1.2. That version has various post-release fixes, and also restores
> > the bundled copy of libdazzle 3.32.x instead of using the system libdazzle
> > 3.30.x: upstream say 3.32.x has important fixes for epiphany-browser.
> > 
> > I've prepared a draft package at
> > <https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/epiphany-browser/merge_requests/1>
> 
> Now that webkit2gtk 2.24.x is in buster, I've reverted the parts of that
> draft package that were only there to relax the dependency on webkit2gtk
> to 2.22.x, and uploaded it to experimental.
> 
> Here's a debdiff excluding the translations and the now-bundled copy
> of libdazzle:
> https://people.debian.org/~smcv/epiphany-browser_3.32.1.2-1_without-libdazzle.diff
> 
> and a separate debdiff between buster's libdazzle and the bundled copy,
> in the hope that this is less horrible to review than the whole of the
> bundled copy:
> https://people.debian.org/~smcv/epiphany-browser_3.32.1.2-1_libdazzle.diff
> 
> An upload to unstable would presumably differ only by a
> changelog entry.
> 
> > someone who knows the package better should probably take over at
> > this point, so I'm marking the unblock request as moreinfo
> 
> This still stands. I don't use epiphany-browser myself, so if the GNOME
> team is intending to release it in buster, I would strongly prefer for
> someone else to do the upload to unstable.
> 
> If nobody is willing to do that, then we should remove epiphany-browser
> from buster, and possibly reopen #916347 "epiphany-browser: Don't include
> in Buster".

Please upload to unstable. As the current version in unstable doesn't even
build, it will be better that what is there now. And if we end up removing it,
a new version in unstable won't hurt.

Note that I'm not tagging this request 'confirmed', becuase I haven't looked
at the details to see if an unblock would be appropriate. That can happen
later.

Thanks,

Ivo