UVF exception for ipython-0.7.0-2

[Reinhard Tartler]

Am Sonntag, den 22.01.2006, 13:38 +0100 schrieb Stephan Hermann:
> On Saturday 21 January 2006 23:45, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > I just had a serious talk with the ipython maintainer of ipython. He is
> > currently preparing version 0.7.0-2 for debian, and thinks that version
> > should be in dapper. We did some investigation and found that the merge
> > for the previous version was botched, so something has to be done
> > anyway.
> 
> Well, the patch he was talking about was introduced in hoary from doko.
> I don't actually know anymore, if the patch was in the upstream version of 
> debian, during the merge period.
> 
> So, Norbert shouldn't complain so loud, because he never mentiond the upstream 
> change in his changelog.

Anyway. I don't think it is his job to check if we are doing our merge
jobs right. Just because he doesn't copy the upstream changelog to
debian/changelog, this is no excuse to not check if those patches are
necessary at all.

> This is the changelog of the hoary version:
> 
> ipython (0.6.10-0ubuntu1) hoary; urgency=low
> 
>   * New upstream version.
>   * Conditionally import the profiler code.
>   * Suggest the python-profiler package.
> 
>  -- Matthias Klose <doko at ubuntu.com>  Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:52:51 +0100
> 
> ipython (0.6.5-1ubuntu1) hoary; urgency=low
> 
>   * Rebuild for python2.4.
> 
>  -- Matthias Klose <m at klose.in-berlin.de>  Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:24:06 +0100

Why do these lines miss in the changelog of the current version?

> Actually, I honestly don't know anymore, why the changelog for breezy wasn't 
> containing the changes from ubuntu. But there are only two reasons why:
> MoM output was bugged, or I wasn't paying enough attention to the changelog 
> diff.

Exactly that's the point. Sorry, I can really understand why this
behavior pisses some DDs off. You cannot botch some merge and later tell
your upstream (in this case the DD who cares for the packages) that he
shouldn't shout that loud.

> > The patch to the package is quite small, only the default python would
> > need to changed. If I get approval, I'll handly this shortly
> 
> Well, and the python 2.2 package has to be removed from the dapper package. 
> 
> It would be easier, if Norbert just had ask me, because he shout out loud that 
> he read the changelog 
> (http://www.inittab.de/blog/2006/01/21#20060121_ubuntu-did-it-again), but 
> never bothered to ask, when he didn't understand it. Actually that would be 
> the action I would take.

Did you or doko talk to him when creating the patch? No? So why should
he? If you had talked to him when doing the merge, then he would have
been able to tell you, that the (now undocumented) patch in question was
added to the debian package in version 0.6.5-1.1, and was merged
upstream in 0.6.12. Therefore I can call the merge botched, which I
think should be fixed rather quickly in order to not annoy nobse further
than necessary.

I'm quite happy than he talks to me at all about ubuntu packages. I
would not like that he ignores us completely :(

> But for me it would be ok, when we know what exactly changed in the upcoming 
> release.

I just asked nobse and he told me that 0.7.0 was a bugfix only release,
and he would really appreciate if dapper would ship that version. I
trust him in this matter.

-- 
Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20060122/17189800/attachment.pgp