Stefano Zacchiroli: RC bugs of the week - week 12
RCBW - week #12
Here is this week squashes, by yours truly:
In fact, this is more useful than one can imagine, because a
considerable amount of time in periodic RC squashing is taken by
triaging the RC bug list to choose your targets. Of course there is
no guarantee that I'll be willing/able to fix handed-over bugs but,
as a RM, Luk has evidently well-trained feelings about how hard
would be to fix a given bug. All in all, for this week it worked
well: 4 of the above 7 came from SchindlerLuk's list.
... and of course, let's welcome Simon on board! He is
definitely doing a better job at spotting packages that should be
removed from the archive rather than resurrected
(potential negative effect that a NMU can indeed have on a package,
de facto "saving" it from testing/release exclusion).
In fact, the dilemma of "NMU vs Request
Removal" raises various tricky questions. For instance,
while we currently have pretty clear
guidelines on how and, more importantly, when doing
NMUs, we are more stringent on "Non-Maintainer Removals".
Quoting from the Package Removal
Requests wiki page:
- 23/11/2009 bug #553122 - libtcl-chiark-1 - add missing ldconfig invocation, for *.so in linker locations
- 24/11/2009 bug #528152 - tulip - replace ttf-bistream-vera w/ dejavusans (patch from James Westby)
- 25/11/2009 bug #533993 - solfege - remove net need for xmllint (patch from Ubuntu by Alessio Treglia)
- 26/11/2009 bug #531220 - nut - fix ntp.conf postinst processing to avoid overwriting user settings
- 27/11/2009 bug #523912 - mit-scheme - add missing build-dep + tricky build due to bootstrap
- 28/11/2009 bug #521964 - libapache2-mod-lisp - fix APR version detection, patch by Antonio Radici
- 29/11/2009 bug #553257 - pidgin-hotkeys - remove unappropriate e-Xclusion in dh_shlibdebs
In fact, this is more useful than one can imagine, because a
considerable amount of time in periodic RC squashing is taken by
triaging the RC bug list to choose your targets. Of course there is
no guarantee that I'll be willing/able to fix handed-over bugs but,
as a RM, Luk has evidently well-trained feelings about how hard
would be to fix a given bug. All in all, for this week it worked
well: 4 of the above 7 came from SchindlerLuk's list.
... and of course, let's welcome Simon on board! He is
definitely doing a better job at spotting packages that should be
removed from the archive rather than resurrected
(potential negative effect that a NMU can indeed have on a package,
de facto "saving" it from testing/release exclusion).
In fact, the dilemma of "NMU vs Request
Removal" raises various tricky questions. For instance,
while we currently have pretty clear
guidelines on how and, more importantly, when doing
NMUs, we are more stringent on "Non-Maintainer Removals".
Quoting from the Package Removal
Requests wiki page:
In all cases, if there is a maintainer and it's not you, mention the
maintainer's opinion or, if you don't know it, mention how and when you
tried to contact him.
The DebConf10 team just sent out a press release announcing the dates and venue
for 
Thanks to Valessio Brito for coming up with it!
