| 2009-02-12 10:20:04 |
Roger Dingledine |
bug |
|
|
added bug |
| 2009-02-12 10:20:30 |
Roger Dingledine |
who_made_private |
arma-mit |
|
|
| 2009-02-12 10:22:15 |
Roger Dingledine |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team |
| 2009-02-12 10:47:31 |
Martin Pitt |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber MOTU Stable Release Updates |
| 2009-02-12 10:49:15 |
Martin Pitt |
tor: status |
New |
Invalid |
|
| 2009-02-12 10:49:15 |
Martin Pitt |
tor: statusexplanation |
|
Intrepid and Jaunty already have 0.2, thus the "0.1.2.x abandoned" does not apply there. If there are important fixes in later upstream 0.2.x microreleases, they should get a separate bug report. |
|
| 2009-02-12 10:55:00 |
Martin Pitt |
tor: status |
New |
Triaged |
|
| 2009-02-12 10:55:00 |
Martin Pitt |
tor: statusexplanation |
|
I still remember the thread, and back then we concluded that we can pursue the path of updating stables to new upstream versions if we get enough testing *and* the upgrade does not break existing user configuration. I subscribed motu-sru for their feedback as well, since the package is in universe.
Are there any configuration settings in 0.1.x. which are not handled any more by 0.2? If so, what happens for those?
Should we put the current intrepid package (2.0.31) into hardy-proposed? In other words, is 2.0.31 "good enough" for now? This would be slightly safer, since the intrepid version already got testing. We could then update all stable releases to a newer 0.2.x later, in a separate SRU.
Or rather update jaunty and intrepid-proposed to the latest upstream microrelease first (which should become a separate SRU bug, see above), test it, get it into intrepid-updates, and then backport this to hardy?
Thanks for any insight, Roger! |
|
| 2009-02-16 09:02:03 |
Martin Pitt |
title |
Tor 0.1.2.x abandoned by upstream |
Tor 0.1.2.x abandoned by upstream, update to 0.2.34 |
|
| 2009-02-16 09:03:58 |
Martin Pitt |
tor: status |
Invalid |
Fix Released |
|
| 2009-02-16 09:03:58 |
Martin Pitt |
tor: statusexplanation |
|
OK, let's use this bug to track intrepid as well, I made the bug title more general.
So this is fixed in Jaunty now. Can someone please prepare and test a backport to hardy and intrepid? I'll assist with reviewing, sponsoring, and processing it through the queues. Then we need to give them a good testing.
Thank you! |
|
| 2009-02-16 09:13:09 |
Roger Dingledine |
title |
Tor 0.1.2.x abandoned by upstream, update to 0.2.34 |
Tor 0.1.2.x abandoned by upstream, update to 0.2.0.34 |
|
| 2009-02-19 15:34:21 |
Jamie Strandboge |
tor: status |
New |
Confirmed |
|
| 2009-02-19 15:34:21 |
Jamie Strandboge |
tor: statusexplanation |
|
|
|
| 2009-04-17 13:30:50 |
Runa A. Sandvik |
attachment added |
|
intrepid-build.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/25615405/intrepid-build.txt |
|
| 2009-04-17 13:31:25 |
Runa A. Sandvik |
attachment added |
|
hardy-build.txt http://launchpadlibrarian.net/25615413/hardy-build.txt |
|
| 2009-04-24 11:45:37 |
Martin Pitt |
tor (Ubuntu Intrepid): status |
Confirmed |
Fix Committed |
|
| 2009-04-24 11:45:41 |
Martin Pitt |
tags |
|
verification-needed |
|
| 2009-04-24 11:51:19 |
Martin Pitt |
tor (Ubuntu Hardy): status |
Triaged |
Fix Committed |
|
| 2009-05-05 11:34:21 |
Martin Pitt |
tags |
verification-needed |
verification-done |
|
| 2009-05-06 09:44:03 |
Martin Pitt |
tor (Ubuntu Jaunty): status |
Fix Released |
Invalid |
|
| 2009-05-06 10:33:03 |
Launchpad Janitor |
tor (Ubuntu Hardy): status |
Fix Committed |
Fix Released |
|
| 2009-05-06 10:33:20 |
Launchpad Janitor |
tor (Ubuntu Intrepid): status |
Fix Committed |
Fix Released |
|
| 2009-08-16 22:54:09 |
Launchpad Janitor |
branch linked |
|
lp:ubuntu/hardy-proposed/tor |
|
| 2009-08-16 22:55:16 |
Launchpad Janitor |
branch linked |
|
lp:ubuntu/intrepid-proposed/tor |
|
| 2010-10-17 22:17:17 |
Axel Beckert |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Axel Beckert |
| 2010-11-20 14:40:17 |
Gary M |
bug |
|
|
added subscriber Gary M |
