Comment 13 for bug 873787

On 14/11/2011 14:49, Chris Halse Rogers wrote:
> How is this going to be addressed in Precise? One of the outcomes of
> the SRU UDS session was that we'll be enforcing our policy more
> consistently; that means that this needs to be fixed in Precise first.
>
> Getting this fixed in precise first will also give the previous
> -proposed upload the opportunity to mature and make it through to
> -updates, so we won't reset the testing clock on all that goodness.

The patch is just a workaround, not a real fix. We still don't know exactly
what's causing the bug.

I plan on leaving the patch I just applied for oneiric-proposed out for precise
to allow for testing until later in the cycle. There are a number of releases to
go before 2.4.0 gets released for Precise. If it gets fixed before then, well
and good. Otherwise, I'll just slap the patch on again for the final 2.4.0
upload before release.

If that doesn't sound good, I suppose we can have the patch on the 2.3.x builds
in Precise as well, but the result is that we have a cheap hack that deviates
from upstream and upstream doesn't get a chance to fix the bug because it's been
worked around downstream.

--
Kind regards,
Loong Jin