removing libswig* makes subversion unbuildable

[Debian Bug Importer]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #273400 http://bugs.debian.org/273400

[Torsten Landschoff (torsten)]

On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 12:16:01AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:

> the removal of the libswig* packages made subversion unbuildable. This
> is per se a grave bug.
>
> Furthermore, it might have helped me in understanding the reason, if the
> changelog would have given one.
>
> Please re-add libswig to the package. Thanks.

The reason is quite simple: Upstream removed that part. The runtime is
not build anymore.

Interestingly the subversion build seems to have some support for that
(see the [swig_runtime] section of build.conf) but it does not work. The
whole subversion build setup is a bit mysterious for me.

The solution is also not as simple as I'd like it:

a) It's non-trivial to have 1.3.22 build the runtime again
b) Building 1.3.21 and naming it 1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 is something
   I /really/ don't like but it seems it is the easiest way. :(

What do you think?

Greetings

 Torsten

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #273400 http://bugs.debian.org/273400

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 00:16:01 +0200
From: Andreas Barth <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: removing libswig* makes subversion unbuildable

Package: swig1.3
Version: 1.3.22-1
Severity: grave

Hi,

the removal of the libswig* packages made subversion unbuildable. This
is per se a grave bug.

Furthermore, it might have helped me in understanding the reason, if the
changelog would have given one.

Please re-add libswig to the package. Thanks.

Cheers,
Andi
--
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

Bug introduced in sid post-freeze

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 01:51:44 +0200
From: Torsten Landschoff <email address hidden>
To: Andreas Barth <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273400: removing libswig* makes subversion unbuildable

--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 12:16:01AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
=20
> the removal of the libswig* packages made subversion unbuildable. This
> is per se a grave bug.
>=20
> Furthermore, it might have helped me in understanding the reason, if the
> changelog would have given one.
>=20
> Please re-add libswig to the package. Thanks.

The reason is quite simple: Upstream removed that part. The runtime is
not build anymore.=20

Interestingly the subversion build seems to have some support for that
(see the [swig_runtime] section of build.conf) but it does not work. The
whole subversion build setup is a bit mysterious for me.

The solution is also not as simple as I'd like it:

a) It's non-trivial to have 1.3.22 build the runtime again
b) Building 1.3.21 and naming it 1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 is something=20
   I /really/ don't like but it seems it is the easiest way. :(

What do you think?

Greetings

 Torsten

--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBVgSPdQgHtVUb5EcRAjsIAJ9MsJphyNImfJMj5IH/ufIqauE90ACeO1LP
ZGUXcHRJKAXCj392M3J4eVE=
=02w0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LZvS9be/3tNcYl/X--

[Laszlo Boszormenyi (gcs)]

* Andreas Barth <email address hidden> [2004-09-26 00:16:01 +0200]:

> Package: swig1.3
> Version: 1.3.22-1
> Severity: grave
[...]
> the removal of the libswig* packages made subversion unbuildable. This
> is per se a grave bug.
 Do you mean #273431? That's caused by cdbs as far as I see, if I
downgrade it to 0.4.22-1.4, then subversion build starts at least. Will
check if it succeeds as well.

> Furthermore, it might have helped me in understanding the reason, if the
> changelog would have given one.
You can see the discussion with the swig developers at:
http://mailman.cs.uchicago.edu/pipermail/swig/2004-August/010367.html

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <20040926072849.GB16736@pooh>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:28:49 +0200
From: Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273400: removing libswig* makes subversion unbuildable

* Andreas Barth <email address hidden> [2004-09-26 00:16:01 +0200]:

> Package: swig1.3
> Version: 1.3.22-1
> Severity: grave
[...]
> the removal of the libswig* packages made subversion unbuildable. This
> is per se a grave bug.
 Do you mean #273431? That's caused by cdbs as far as I see, if I
downgrade it to 0.4.22-1.4, then subversion build starts at least. Will
check if it succeeds as well.

> Furthermore, it might have helped me in understanding the reason, if the
> changelog would have given one.
You can see the discussion with the swig developers at:
http://mailman.cs.uchicago.edu/pipermail/swig/2004-August/010367.html

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

[David Kimdon (david-kimdon)]

k, the cdbs problem is fixed. This leaves us with the swig problem.
Torsten, you could do an epoch, and go back to 1.3.21, rather than the
1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 hack, I don't know if you would feel happier
with an epoch. Is there something we like in 1.3.22? I haven't
gotten a chance to look at this problem in any depth, and won't for a
couple of days at least.

-David

[Torsten Landschoff (torsten)]

Hi David,

On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 10:44:41PM -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
> k, the cdbs problem is fixed. This leaves us with the swig problem.
> Torsten, you could do an epoch, and go back to 1.3.21, rather than the
> 1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 hack, I don't know if you would feel happier
> with an epoch. Is there something we like in 1.3.22? I haven't
> gotten a chance to look at this problem in any depth, and won't for a
> couple of days at least.

1.3.22 has mostly bug fixes. I did not really test what is there that we
need.

The epoch is nice now but will persist. I'd rather make a short lived
hack (short in term of releases ;)). I tried to get the Runtime build in
1.3.22 but it's a lot of stuff to revert. As I am going to vacations
tomorrow I'll play the safe game and upload a new 1.3.21 using the hack
you mentioned. OTOH - how do I handle the orig.tar.gz problem? Also
the runtime will then be in packages libswig1.3.22* which is also
something I don't like.

There is no way to pull 1.3.22-1 from unstable? That would be the
easiest solution from my side.

Greetings

 Torsten

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:44:41 -0700
From: David Kimdon <email address hidden>
To: Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273431: subversion_1.0.8-1(ia64/unstable): FTBFS: broken makefile

k, the cdbs problem is fixed. This leaves us with the swig problem.
Torsten, you could do an epoch, and go back to 1.3.21, rather than the
1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 hack, I don't know if you would feel happier
with an epoch. Is there something we like in 1.3.22? I haven't
gotten a chance to look at this problem in any depth, and won't for a
couple of days at least.

-David

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:03:31 +0200
From: Torsten Landschoff <email address hidden>
To: David Kimdon <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273400: Bug#273431: subversion_1.0.8-1(ia64/unstable): FTBFS: broken makefile

--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi David,=20

On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 10:44:41PM -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
> k, the cdbs problem is fixed. This leaves us with the swig problem.
> Torsten, you could do an epoch, and go back to 1.3.21, rather than the
> 1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 hack, I don't know if you would feel happier
> with an epoch. Is there something we like in 1.3.22? I haven't
> gotten a chance to look at this problem in any depth, and won't for a
> couple of days at least.

1.3.22 has mostly bug fixes. I did not really test what is there that we
need.=20

The epoch is nice now but will persist. I'd rather make a short lived
hack (short in term of releases ;)). I tried to get the Runtime build in
1.3.22 but it's a lot of stuff to revert. As I am going to vacations
tomorrow I'll play the safe game and upload a new 1.3.21 using the hack
you mentioned. OTOH - how do I handle the orig.tar.gz problem? Also
the runtime will then be in packages libswig1.3.22* which is also
something I don't like.

There is no way to pull 1.3.22-1 from unstable? That would be the
easiest solution from my side.

Greetings

 Torsten

--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBV7tDdQgHtVUb5EcRAskUAJ4uvRytXJ60P/Qn2tg0VZIGnABRgwCcDaL1
+TysFgp9w3K2Lu6hx5J+S+M=
=T+4N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6TrnltStXW4iwmi0--

[Andreas Barth (aba)]

Hi,

* David Kimdon (<email address hidden>) [040927 07:55]:
> k, the cdbs problem is fixed. This leaves us with the swig problem.
> Torsten, you could do an epoch, and go back to 1.3.21, rather than the
> 1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 hack, I don't know if you would feel happier
> with an epoch. Is there something we like in 1.3.22? I haven't
> gotten a chance to look at this problem in any depth, and won't for a
> couple of days at least.

I think we all agree that the problem should be fixed in sid. Last time
I spoke with Thorsten, he had some ideas how to deliver 1.3.22 _and_
delivering these libs. But of course you're right, we shouldn't hold our
breath too long while waiting for this.

To the version: Well, as long as 1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 doesn't go into
sarge, I prefer it as the cleaner solution, as this is only ugly once,
but an epoch stays the entire life of the package.

Cheers,
Andi
--
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:52:48 +0200
From: Andreas Barth <email address hidden>
To: David Kimdon <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273400: Bug#273431: subversion_1.0.8-1(ia64/unstable): FTBFS: broken makefile

Hi,

* David Kimdon (<email address hidden>) [040927 07:55]:
> k, the cdbs problem is fixed. This leaves us with the swig problem.
> Torsten, you could do an epoch, and go back to 1.3.21, rather than the
> 1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 hack, I don't know if you would feel happier
> with an epoch. Is there something we like in 1.3.22? I haven't
> gotten a chance to look at this problem in any depth, and won't for a
> couple of days at least.

I think we all agree that the problem should be fixed in sid. Last time
I spoke with Thorsten, he had some ideas how to deliver 1.3.22 _and_
delivering these libs. But of course you're right, we shouldn't hold our
breath too long while waiting for this.

To the version: Well, as long as 1.3.22-1.really.1.3.21 doesn't go into
sarge, I prefer it as the cleaner solution, as this is only ugly once,
but an epoch stays the entire life of the package.

Cheers,
Andi
--
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

[Adam Conrad (adconrad)]

I'm in the process of fixing up SVN to build against swig 1.3.22 the
"proper" way and ditching the requirement for the runtime dependency
altogether. Since Torsten never got around to uploading the hacked
swig1.3 (at least, I don't see it on any mirrors... Or is it in
queue/NEW?), I'd ask that he not bother, as fixing this the "right" way
seems to be, well, the right way in the long run.

... Adam

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <081601c4a5ef$761019f0$[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:42:14 +1000
From: "Adam Conrad" <[e-mail]>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: swig and subversion issues

I'm in the process of fixing up SVN to build against swig 1.3.22 the
"proper" way and ditching the requirement for the runtime dependency
altogether. Since Torsten never got around to uploading the hacked
swig1.3 (at least, I don't see it on any mirrors... Or is it in
queue/NEW?), I'd ask that he not bother, as fixing this the "right" way
seems to be, well, the right way in the long run.

... Adam

[Laszlo Boszormenyi (gcs)]

* Adam Conrad <[e-mail]> [2004-09-29 16:42:14 +1000]:

> I'm in the process of fixing up SVN to build against swig 1.3.22 the
> "proper" way and ditching the requirement for the runtime dependency
> altogether.
 Thank you very much in advance! Is there any sneak peak to it?

> Since Torsten never got around to uploading the hacked
> swig1.3 (at least, I don't see it on any mirrors... Or is it in
> queue/NEW?),
 Well, I _do_ remember that he fixed it in 1.3.22-2 some day ago, but could
not find it now... Maybe it was not accepted, but I definiately seen the
upload.

> I'd ask that he not bother, as fixing this the "right" way
> seems to be, well, the right way in the long run.
 Yes, it would be good if this is fixed in the right way. Unfortunately
I can not contribute to it, but you should contact David and cooperate.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

[Laszlo Boszormenyi (gcs)]

* Adam Conrad <[e-mail]> [2004-09-29 16:42:14 +1000]:

> Since Torsten never got around to uploading the hacked
> swig1.3 (at least, I don't see it on any mirrors... Or is it in
> queue/NEW?),
 Aha I have found it. It should be in new, waiting for ftp-masters as the
package now contains "new" binary packages as Torsten got back the libswig*
files/packages. We are in the hands of the ftp-masters; when they allow
1.3.22-2 in, then a signal to the buildd admins to requeue subversion
1.0.8-1 would be sufficient, no re-upload will be needed IMHO.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <20040929184817.GA27601@pooh>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:48:18 +0200
From: Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <email address hidden>
To: Adam Conrad <[e-mail]>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273400: swig and subversion issues

* Adam Conrad <[e-mail]> [2004-09-29 16:42:14 +1000]:

> I'm in the process of fixing up SVN to build against swig 1.3.22 the
> "proper" way and ditching the requirement for the runtime dependency
> altogether.
 Thank you very much in advance! Is there any sneak peak to it?

> Since Torsten never got around to uploading the hacked
> swig1.3 (at least, I don't see it on any mirrors... Or is it in
> queue/NEW?),
 Well, I _do_ remember that he fixed it in 1.3.22-2 some day ago, but could
not find it now... Maybe it was not accepted, but I definiately seen the
upload.

> I'd ask that he not bother, as fixing this the "right" way
> seems to be, well, the right way in the long run.
 Yes, it would be good if this is fixed in the right way. Unfortunately
I can not contribute to it, but you should contact David and cooperate.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <20040929185644.GA27766@pooh>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:56:44 +0200
From: Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <email address hidden>
To: Adam Conrad <[e-mail]>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273400: swig and subversion issues

* Adam Conrad <[e-mail]> [2004-09-29 16:42:14 +1000]:

> Since Torsten never got around to uploading the hacked
> swig1.3 (at least, I don't see it on any mirrors... Or is it in
> queue/NEW?),
 Aha I have found it. It should be in new, waiting for ftp-masters as the
package now contains "new" binary packages as Torsten got back the libswig*
files/packages. We are in the hands of the ftp-masters; when they allow
1.3.22-2 in, then a signal to the buildd admins to requeue subversion
1.0.8-1 would be sufficient, no re-upload will be needed IMHO.

Regards,
Laszlo/GCS

[Torsten Landschoff (torsten)]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 04:42:14PM +1000, Adam Conrad wrote:
> I'm in the process of fixing up SVN to build against swig 1.3.22 the
> "proper" way and ditching the requirement for the runtime dependency
> altogether. Since Torsten never got around to uploading the hacked
> swig1.3 (at least, I don't see it on any mirrors... Or is it in
> queue/NEW?), I'd ask that he not bother, as fixing this the "right" way
> seems to be, well, the right way in the long run.

The reason why I finally built 1.3.22-2 with the runtime libs is that I
don't see a "right way". I did not really check the subversion libs
though. If there is a "base" or "main" module the runtime stuff should
be built into that. But I fear there is nothing like that in the
subversion modules (did not spend the time to check) so the swig runtime
packages are still needed.

Just got back and need some time to really check this.

Thanks for taking the torch! :)

 Torsten

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 23:07:56 +0200
From: Torsten Landschoff <email address hidden>
To: Adam Conrad <[e-mail]>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273400: swig and subversion issues

--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 04:42:14PM +1000, Adam Conrad wrote:
> I'm in the process of fixing up SVN to build against swig 1.3.22 the
> "proper" way and ditching the requirement for the runtime dependency
> altogether. Since Torsten never got around to uploading the hacked
> swig1.3 (at least, I don't see it on any mirrors... Or is it in
> queue/NEW?), I'd ask that he not bother, as fixing this the "right" way
> seems to be, well, the right way in the long run.

The reason why I finally built 1.3.22-2 with the runtime libs is that I
don't see a "right way". I did not really check the subversion libs
though. If there is a "base" or "main" module the runtime stuff should
be built into that. But I fear there is nothing like that in the
subversion modules (did not spend the time to check) so the swig runtime
packages are still needed.=20

Just got back and need some time to really check this.

Thanks for taking the torch! :)

 Torsten

--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBYw0sdQgHtVUb5EcRAq2YAJ0USGnP56GRjZJYrGeaU99XrYkSEACfa3od
XQOUXfpynjUsa+a4phm0RjM=
=domN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM--

[David Kimdon (david-kimdon)]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 04:42:14PM +1000, Adam Conrad wrote:
> I'm in the process of fixing up SVN to build against swig 1.3.22 the
> "proper" way and ditching the requirement for the runtime dependency

Hi Adam,

How is this going? I'd like to do what is necessary to get this
fixed.

-David

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 02:33:58 -0700
From: David Kimdon <email address hidden>
To: Adam Conrad <[e-mail]>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273431: swig and subversion issues

On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 04:42:14PM +1000, Adam Conrad wrote:
> I'm in the process of fixing up SVN to build against swig 1.3.22 the
> "proper" way and ditching the requirement for the runtime dependency

Hi Adam,

How is this going? I'd like to do what is necessary to get this
fixed.

-David

[Laszlo Boszormenyi (gcs)]

severity 275854 grave
reassign 275854 swig1.3
merge 273400 275854
tags 275854 + pending
thanks

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <20041010204835.GA2280@pooh>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:48:35 +0200
From: Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: second try

severity 275854 grave
reassign 275854 swig1.3
merge 273400 275854
tags 275854 + pending
thanks

[David Kimdon (david-kimdon)]

It sounds like the current plan is to try to build subversion with
1.3.22-2 (which is currently still in new/) and then get swig 1.3.22-2
and subversion 1.0.8-2 or higher into testing. Torsten, did you plan
on targeting 1.3.22 to sarge?

-David

[Torsten Landschoff (torsten)]

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 04:48:04AM -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
> It sounds like the current plan is to try to build subversion with
> 1.3.22-2 (which is currently still in new/) and then get swig 1.3.22-2
> and subversion 1.0.8-2 or higher into testing. Torsten, did you plan
> on targeting 1.3.22 to sarge?

That was the idea...

Greetings

 Torsten

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 04:48:04 -0700
From: David Kimdon <email address hidden>
To: Torsten Landschoff <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: Adam Conrad <[e-mail]>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#273431: Bug#273400: swig and subversion issues

It sounds like the current plan is to try to build subversion with
1.3.22-2 (which is currently still in new/) and then get swig 1.3.22-2
and subversion 1.0.8-2 or higher into testing. Torsten, did you plan
on targeting 1.3.22 to sarge?

-David

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:23:48 +0200
From: Torsten Landschoff <email address hidden>
To: David Kimdon <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, Adam Conrad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bug#273400: Bug#273431: Bug#273400: swig and subversion issues

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 04:48:04AM -0700, David Kimdon wrote:
> It sounds like the current plan is to try to build subversion with
> 1.3.22-2 (which is currently still in new/) and then get swig 1.3.22-2
> and subversion 1.0.8-2 or higher into testing. Torsten, did you plan
> on targeting 1.3.22 to sarge?=20

That was the idea...

Greetings

 Torsten

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBbMnzdQgHtVUb5EcRAtvaAJ9dC5m+kh4VsFvwWIv3fiuOSh+v7QCeM8JE
LR6uStuMiqpdlmmWbtv/GDc=
=BjvQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--

[David Kimdon (dwhedon)]

Hi,

swig1.3 1.3.22-2 was uploaded to new/ on 2004-09-28. I'd like to see
this package accepted into the archive.

subversion is currently unbuildable in sid due to a problem that we
believe is fixed in swig1.3 1.3.22-2.

We would like subversion 1.0.8-2 or higher into sarge to fix at least
the following RC bugs:

#275992: Possible repository corruption with 1.0.6
#274176: CAN-2004-0749: Information leak in subversion

Thanks for the help,

David

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:20:59 -0700
From: David Kimdon <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>, Adam Conrad <[e-mail]>,
 Torsten Landschoff <email address hidden>
Subject: let's get swig1.3 1.3.22-2 out of new/

--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,

swig1.3 1.3.22-2 was uploaded to new/ on 2004-09-28. I'd like to see
this package accepted into the archive.

subversion is currently unbuildable in sid due to a problem that we
believe is fixed in swig1.3 1.3.22-2.

We would like subversion 1.0.8-2 or higher into sarge to fix at least
the following RC bugs:

#275992: Possible repository corruption with 1.0.6
#274176: CAN-2004-0749: Information leak in subversion

Thanks for the help,

David

--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBbmEbST1m+6jv1gMRAghvAJ9+ARB8xWUKN4MapGBuwmXpu49W8QCglHL3
cfhu4Ok1EFDM5M0waCIRfNs=
=ZKzY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--NzB8fVQJ5HfG6fxh--

[Andreas Barth (aba)]

Hi,

as this package went into accepted now, I'm closing my own bug now.

Cheers,
Andi
--
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:56:58 +0200
From: Andreas Barth <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Package is accepted, bug is closed

Hi,

as this package went into accepted now, I'm closing my own bug now.

Cheers,
Andi
--
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C