SRU

[Marek Slama]

Daniel Holbach wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 28.06.2007, 18:46 +0200 schrieb Marek Slama:
>   
>> Tom Marble wrote:
>>     
>>> The reason an SRU may still make sense here is that currently the
>>> version in feisty (0.59):
>>> http://packages.ubuntu.com/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?searchon=names&subword=1&version=feisty&release=all&keywords=netbeans&sourceid=mozilla-search
>>>
>>> Is the one which requires the user to manually download the NetBeans
>>> tarball first.  This significantly diminishes the end user experience
>>> of installation.
>>>       
>> No strong opinion on this so far.
>>
>> I will sum differences between 5.5-0.59 (currently in Feisty) and 
>> current 5.5.1-2 in gutsy:
>>
>> 1. License is updated so that package can be installed directly without 
>> manual step. It is main
>> reason why we want to get this update back to Feisty.
>>
>> 2. We updated upstream from NetBeans 5.5 to NetBeans 5.5.1.
>>
>> 3. Minor fix - patch for netbeans.conf to point to Sun JDK.
>>
>> We would like to get all 3 changes to Feisty. Daniel please let us now 
>> if we should go through SRU or Backport process.
>>     
>
> the thing is that the diff between the versions in the archive (35M vs
> 121M) is huge. You can't expect somebody to eyeball all that.
>
> It's not my decision in the end, but the one of the archive admins. I
> see your point that it'd be nicer for end users to get the right thing
> in the first place and I'm absolutely not arguing against that. I just
> guess that a backport might be the more realistic option.
>
> If you want to have a chat with archive admins, here's the list of them:
> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-archive/+members - also
> ubuntu-archive at lists.ubuntu.com
>
> Have a nice day,
>  Daniel
>
>   
Ok. I started backporting. I subscribed to 
https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-backporters and waiting for approval.
It is not clear to me if I need to get approval before I file issue to 
https://launchpad.net/feisty-backports.

Thanks

Marek