Debian Bug report logs - #622371
transition: webkit

Package: release.debian.org; Maintainer for release.debian.org is Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>;

Reported by: Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>

Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:03:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Done: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:03:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:03:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: transition: webkit
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 11:41:33 -0300
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
this involves:

webkit now provides two parallel-installable libraries:
libwebkitgtk-1.0-0 and libwebkitgtk-3.0-0; the former built with gtk2
and the later built with gtk3

libwebkitgtk-1.0-0 superseds libwebkit-1.0-2 (currently in unstable),
but is also parallel installable with it

webkit 1.3.x provides a libwebkit-dev package to automatically
transition packages using gtk2-based webkit to the new
libwebkitgtk-1.0-0 binary (the library is still API-compatible)

One option we can consider is removing the libwebkit-dev transitional
package from the 1.3.x webkit so that we can control which packages
migrate to the newer library, and readd it when we want the
mass-migration to happen

Bellow I list the rdepends for libwebkit-1.0-2. Newer versions of some
of these will actually use libwebkitgtk-3.0-dev, like epiphany and
devhelp.

  anjuta
  awn-applets-c-extras
  banshee
  bibledit
  cairo-dock-weblets-plugin
  claws-mail-fancy-plugin
  devhelp
  empathy
  epiphany-browser
  epiphany-extensions
  evolution-rss
  geany-plugin-webhelper
  gimp
  gir1.2-webkit-1.0
  gmpc-plugins
  gnucash
  gphpedit
  kazehakase-webkit
  lekhonee-gnome
  libdevhelp-1-1
  libghc6-webkit-dev
 |libproxy0
  libseed0
  libswt-webkit-gtk-3.6-jni
  libwebkit-1.0-2-dbg
  libwebkit1.1-cil
  libwebkit-dev
  liferea
  luakit
  midori
  miro
  nautilus-sendto-empathy
  osmo
  pino
  python-jswebkit
  python-webkit
  sflphone-gnome
  shotwell
  surf
  uzbl
  webkit-image-gtk
  xtrkcad
  yelp

Cheers,

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.1
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.38-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:42:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Tue, 12 Apr 2011 23:42:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>
To: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:40:35 -0400
Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:

> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
> this involves:

I would prefer to stick with 1.2.x for the time being since I don't
want to try to do security support for two codebases at the same time
(until we get later in the development process). Can we keep it in
experimental or create a webkit virtual package that can be fulfilled
by webkit1.2 or webkit1.4?  Or is that much too complicated?

Are there any immediate drivers for this transition?  And if so, can't
they be staged in experimental?

Best wishes,
Mike




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:09:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:09:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>
To: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>, 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:56:42 +0200
On 04/13/2011 01:40 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
>
>> Package: release.debian.org
>> Severity: normal
>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>> Usertags: transition
>>
>> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
>> this involves:
>
> I would prefer to stick with 1.2.x for the time being

Until when?

>
> Are there any immediate drivers for this transition?  And if so, can't
> they be staged in experimental?
>

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:42:26 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:42:28 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #20 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>
To: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 07:41:15 -0400
Mehdi Dogguy wrote:

> On 04/13/2011 01:40 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> >
> >> Package: release.debian.org
> >> Severity: normal
> >> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> >> Usertags: transition
> >>
> >> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
> >> this involves:
> >
> > I would prefer to stick with 1.2.x for the time being
> 
> Until when?

Sometime between December this year and Feb 2012 (or until the
complaining gets too noisy).

Best wishes,
Mike




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:33:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:33:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #25 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>
To: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:10:56 -0300
> > On 04/13/2011 01:40 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > >> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable.
> What
> > >> this involves:
> > >
> > > I would prefer to stick with 1.2.x for the time being
> > 
> > Until when?
> 
> Sometime between December this year and Feb 2012 (or until the
> complaining gets too noisy).

That won't be possible. Doing that would severely restrict our ability
to progress in pushing GNOME3 down to unstable - Empathy, Epiphany,
Devhelp and whatnot need this version of WebKit. It would also severly
limit the exposure of newer webkit versions to user testing and
development (the very reason for unstable/testing).

I understand your concern about security support, but I think holding
webkit in experimental for almost a year just because we want
stable-quality security support for testing makes no sense at all, so
let's please stick to my request =). The "staging" of packages that
require the newer webkit on experimental has already happened, and it's
now time to push them to unstable.

Cheers,

-- 
Gustavo Noronha Silva <gustavo@noronha.eti.br>





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:39:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:39:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #30 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>
To: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>, 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:01:14 +0100
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:41:15AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>
>> On 04/13/2011 01:40 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> > Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
>> >
>> >> Package: release.debian.org
>> >> Severity: normal
>> >> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>> >> Usertags: transition
>> >>
>> >> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
>> >> this involves:
>> >
>> > I would prefer to stick with 1.2.x for the time being
>> 
>> Until when?
>
>Sometime between December this year and Feb 2012 (or until the
>complaining gets too noisy).

Right. Are you deliberately trying to stall all development, or does
it just appear that way?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"We're the technical experts.  We were hired so that management could
 ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs."  -- Mike Andrews





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:06:15 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:06:15 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #35 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>
To: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:05:06 -0400
Steve McIntyre wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:41:15AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/13/2011 01:40 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> >> > Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Package: release.debian.org
> >> >> Severity: normal
> >> >> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> >> >> Usertags: transition
> >> >>
> >> >> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
> >> >> this involves:
> >> >
> >> > I would prefer to stick with 1.2.x for the time being
> >> 
> >> Until when?
> >
> >Sometime between December this year and Feb 2012 (or until the
> >complaining gets too noisy).
> 
> Right. Are you deliberately trying to stall all development, or does
> it just appear that way?

I fail to see how proposing a more measured approach to testing
security for two very problematic packages qualifies as stalling all
development.

Yes, it delays newer versions of those packages and their dependencies
for a while, but I don't see how that is a real problem.  The transition
is still going to happen. Testing of those packages is still going to
happen. A year is a very long time.  I fail to see why two years must
be viewed as a requirement.

"Stall" is the wrong kind of framing since that connotes that some kind
of catastrophe (plane crash) is about to happen.

Mike




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:21:14 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:21:14 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #40 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>
To: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:18:48 -0400
Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:

> > > On 04/13/2011 01:40 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > >> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable.
> > What
> > > >> this involves:
> > > >
> > > > I would prefer to stick with 1.2.x for the time being
> > > 
> > > Until when?
> > 
> > Sometime between December this year and Feb 2012 (or until the
> > complaining gets too noisy).
> 
> That won't be possible. Doing that would severely restrict our ability
> to progress in pushing GNOME3 down to unstable - Empathy, Epiphany,
> Devhelp and whatnot need this version of WebKit. 

Those are leafy gnome apps.  I wonder if there is any real harm in
holding them back for a while?

> It would also severly
> limit the exposure of newer webkit versions to user testing and
> development (the very reason for unstable/testing).

Right now, that is just a guess.  It may very well be that quality will
not suffer at all since webkit is going to get testing in various other
distros and via experimental anyway.

We'd need to try the experiment first to say for sure whether or not
this is a real problem to be concerned about.

> I understand your concern about security support, but I think holding
> webkit in experimental for almost a year just because we want
> stable-quality security support for testing makes no sense at all, so
> let's please stick to my request =). 

There is a push to make testing constantly usable, and I think
security support is a very important aspect of that.  If webkit only
had a couple issues a year, then this wouldn't be necessary, but since
it has over 100 per year, its pretty much impossible to support two
versions.  Actually, it's almost impossible to support one version.

> The "staging" of packages that
> require the newer webkit on experimental has already happened, and it's
> now time to push them to unstable.

I don't see the urgency.  Testing has a two year development window.
Even a year is a rather long time.  Why do we need to have this in for
almost two years?

Best wishes,
Mike




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:24:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:24:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #45 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>
To: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:21:11 -0400
Kumar Appaiah wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 09:05:06AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > Right. Are you deliberately trying to stall all development, or does
> > > it just appear that way?
> > 
> > I fail to see how proposing a more measured approach to testing
> > security for two very problematic packages qualifies as stalling all
> > development.
> > 
> > Yes, it delays newer versions of those packages and their dependencies
> > for a while, but I don't see how that is a real problem.  The transition
> > is still going to happen. Testing of those packages is still going to
> > happen. A year is a very long time.  I fail to see why two years must
> > be viewed as a requirement.
> > 
> > "Stall" is the wrong kind of framing since that connotes that some kind
> > of catastrophe (plane crash) is about to happen.
> 
> To the best of my understanding, testing security is provided on a
> best case basis. Given that testing is not as secure, why not just
> provide a lower priority to webkit from the testing security
> perspective while allowing the newer version to get more exposure
> before the next release, rather than introduce the transition at the
> end?

That is what will end up happening as soon as this transition starts.  I
will only have enough time to work on stable security updates.

My suggestion is not to move the transition to the end, but instead to
the middle.  I don't see why it has to be at the start.

Best wishes,
Mike




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:30:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Kumar Appaiah <a.kumar@alumni.iitm.ac.in>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:30:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #50 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kumar Appaiah <a.kumar@alumni.iitm.ac.in>
To: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>, 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:18:11 -0500
Hi.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 09:05:06AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > Right. Are you deliberately trying to stall all development, or does
> > it just appear that way?
> 
> I fail to see how proposing a more measured approach to testing
> security for two very problematic packages qualifies as stalling all
> development.
> 
> Yes, it delays newer versions of those packages and their dependencies
> for a while, but I don't see how that is a real problem.  The transition
> is still going to happen. Testing of those packages is still going to
> happen. A year is a very long time.  I fail to see why two years must
> be viewed as a requirement.
> 
> "Stall" is the wrong kind of framing since that connotes that some kind
> of catastrophe (plane crash) is about to happen.

To the best of my understanding, testing security is provided on a
best case basis. Given that testing is not as secure, why not just
provide a lower priority to webkit from the testing security
perspective while allowing the newer version to get more exposure
before the next release, rather than introduce the transition at the
end?

Apologies in advance for anything wrong I may have said. :-)

Kumar
-- 
Kumar Appaiah




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:18:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:18:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #55 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org>
To: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>, 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:14:28 +0200
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Those are leafy gnome apps.  I wonder if there is any real harm in
> holding them back for a while?

Yes.

Please stop this.

You're on the wrong track if you want to have a more secure testing by
blocking new versions from entering. For me CUT is about the opposite,
bringing the new upstream versions as soon as possible while meeting
the usual quality requirements of testing.

We don't want to forbid the migration of package because you believe
that nobody will ensure their security. The maintainers will fix security
issues with new upstream releases, as usualy.

If there's one thing that I have learned in Debian, it's that we should
not accept to let some people to become bottlenecks in the workflow and
you're just suggesting that we should block further progress because you
don't have the time to do the security support. That's just a no-no.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
                      ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:24:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to "Josselin Mouette" <joss@malsain.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:24:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #60 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Josselin Mouette" <joss@malsain.org>
To: "Gustavo Noronha Silva" <kov@debian.org>, 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:20:20 +0200
Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
> this involves:

How about changing the source package name at the same time? This would
save a lot of the trouble, and the development package names are changing
anyway.

We’re doing that for most GTK-based libraries, to avoid entangling too
many transitions together.

For example if you do that you will entangle webkit with devhelp, and we
really don’t want that.

Cheers,
-- 
Joss





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #65 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>
To: Josselin Mouette <joss@malsain.org>, 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:55:19 -0300
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 15:20 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
> > this involves:
> 
> How about changing the source package name at the same time? This would
> save a lot of the trouble, and the development package names are changing
> anyway.

Sure, changing the source package name sounds ok to me, but that would
only be helpful if we also remove libwebkit-dev from 1.3.x to avoid
automatic migration of gtk2-based webkit users if I understand your
goals, right?

Cheers,

-- 
Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>
Debian Project





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:03:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:03:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #70 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>
To: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: transition: webkit
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 21:01:56 +0200
Hi,

I've opened the bugs to asked the maintainer to update the
build-dependency:


http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=webkit1.3_transition;users=pkg-webkit-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org


Laurent Bigonville




Added blocking bug(s) of 622371: 635417, 635423, 635433, 635412, 635434, 635404, 635426, 635431, 635407, 635421, 635430, 635424, 635402, 635409, 635432, 635419, 635401, 635427, 635415, 635405, 635411, 635420, 635428, 635410, 635422, 635413, 635408, 635414, 635429, 635416, 635406, 635418, 635425, and 635403 Request was from Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 25 Jul 2011 19:06:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:33:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Fri, 29 Jul 2011 23:33:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #77 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>
To: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: transition: webkit
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 01:30:33 +0200
Hi,

libwebkit-dev has been added back in 1.4.2-2 webkitgtk+ upload and it's
now a dummy package that depends against the new libwebkitgtk-dev
package.

Could a binNMU be scheduled for the packages that have not yet adjusted
their build depdendencies yet? A BD-wait should be set for libwebkit-dev
(>= 1.4.2-2).

Thanks

Laurent Bigonville

PS: Could webkitgtk+ be given back on ia64 and sparc, it FTBFS due to a
free disk space issue *sigh*.




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Tue, 02 Aug 2011 18:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #82 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>
To: debian-release@lists.debian.org
Cc: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: transition: webkit
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:53:22 +0200
Hi,

Could you please schedule binNMU for the webkit 1.3 transition:

nmu banshee_2.0.1-3 bibledit_4.0-1 gimp_2.6.11-3 gmpc-plugins_0.20.0-1 kazehakase_0.5.8-4 lekhonee-gnome_0.11-1 miro_4.0.2-1 shotwell_0.9.3-1 surf_0.4.1-4 swt-gtk_3.7-2 uzbl_0.0.0~git.20110412-1 webkit-image_0.0.svn25399-2 xtrkcad_1:4.0.2-2 yelp_2.30.1+webkit-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
nmu haskell-webkit_0.12.1-1 . ALL -mipsel . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
nmu postler_0.1.1-1 . ia64 sparc . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
dw banshee_2.0.1-3 bibledit_4.0-1 gimp_2.6.11-3 gmpc-plugins_0.20.0-1 kazehakase_0.5.8-4 lekhonee-gnome_0.11-1 miro_4.0.2-1 shotwell_0.9.3-1 surf_0.4.1-4 swt-gtk_3.7-2 uzbl_0.0.0~git.20110412-1 webkit-image_0.0.svn25399-2 xtrkcad_1:4.0.2-2 yelp_2.30.1+webkit-1 haskell-webkit_0.12.1-1 postler_0.1.1-1 . ia64 sparc . -m 'libwebkit-dev (>= 1.4.2-2)'


Thanks

Laurent Bigonville




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:48:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:48:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #87 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>
To: debian-release@lists.debian.org
Cc: 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: transition: webkit
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:45:11 +0200
Le Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:53:22 +0200,
Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org> a écrit :

Hi,

Webkitgtk+ has now migrated to testing, I guess can go on with this
transition.

Could you please binNMU the following packages:

nmu bibledit_4.0-1 gmpc-plugins_0.20.0-1 kazehakase_0.5.8-4 surf_0.4.1-4 swt-gtk_3.7-2 uzbl_0.0.0~git.20110412-1 webkit-image_0.0.svn25399-2 xtrkcad_1:4.0.2-2 yelp_2.30.1+webkit-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
nmu postler_0.1.1-1 . ia64 sparc . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
nmu gimp_2.6.11-3 liferea_1.6.5-1.2 . ia64 . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'

Cheers

Lairent Bigonville




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:15:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:15:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #92 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
To: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>, 622371@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:12:13 +0200
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 17:45:11 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:

> Could you please binNMU the following packages:
> 
> nmu bibledit_4.0-1 gmpc-plugins_0.20.0-1 kazehakase_0.5.8-4 surf_0.4.1-4 swt-gtk_3.7-2 uzbl_0.0.0~git.20110412-1 webkit-image_0.0.svn25399-2 xtrkcad_1:4.0.2-2 yelp_2.30.1+webkit-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
> nmu postler_0.1.1-1 . ia64 sparc . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
> nmu gimp_2.6.11-3 liferea_1.6.5-1.2 . ia64 . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
> 
Scheduled.  Thanks for the list.

Cheers,
Julien




Added tag(s) pending. Request was from Julien Cristau <julien.cristau@logilab.fr> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:36:57 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#622371; Package release.debian.org. (Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:33:15 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Release Team <debian-release@lists.debian.org>. (Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:33:15 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #99 received at 622371@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
To: Laurent Bigonville <bigon@debian.org>, 622371@bugs.debian.org
Cc: webkit@packages.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 20:20:33 +0200
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 20:12:13 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 17:45:11 +0200, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> 
> > Could you please binNMU the following packages:
> > 
> > nmu bibledit_4.0-1 gmpc-plugins_0.20.0-1 kazehakase_0.5.8-4 surf_0.4.1-4 swt-gtk_3.7-2 uzbl_0.0.0~git.20110412-1 webkit-image_0.0.svn25399-2 xtrkcad_1:4.0.2-2 yelp_2.30.1+webkit-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
> > nmu postler_0.1.1-1 . ia64 sparc . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
> > nmu gimp_2.6.11-3 liferea_1.6.5-1.2 . ia64 . -m 'Rebuild against libwebkitgtk-1.0-0'
> > 
> Scheduled.  Thanks for the list.
> 
That's all done now.  Please get the webkit source package removed from
unstable by filing a bug against ftp.debian.org.

Cheers,
Julien




Reply sent to Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>:
You have taken responsibility. (Sun, 13 Nov 2011 00:03:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Notification sent to Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>:
Bug acknowledged by developer. (Sun, 13 Nov 2011 00:03:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #104 received at 622371-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
To: Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>, 622371-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#622371: transition: webkit
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 01:01:02 +0100
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:41:33 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:

> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> I plan to upload webkit 1.3.x (soon to be 1.4.0) to unstable. What
> this involves:
> 
webkit 1.6 is now in testing, closing this bug.  Only thing remaining is
to get webkitgtk+ removed by ftpmaster, AFAIK.

Cheers,
Julien




Bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <owner@bugs.debian.org> to internal_control@bugs.debian.org. (Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:36:25 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 17 19:26:02 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.