Comment 6 for bug 2063841

>a) Upstream still has the warning[1] in the "news flash" on the top right of the page, telling users to not upgrade to 7.0.16. In the 7.0.16 changelog[2] page, though, there is no further information.

the situation is now more clear with 7.0.18 out

>b) I browsed their bug database, and mailing lists, particularly right after the 7.0.16 announcement, and found no patch or follow-up

more clear with 7.0.18 too

>c) While not required, the patch in the SRU has no DEP-3 headers. Where is it coming from? I think in this case, given the little amount of information available elsewhere, it would be best if it had such headers. Or, instead, the SRU description of the bug could have more details: upstream bug, upstream commit, perhaps a link to some discussion. Is this fix enough? I found another place in the same file where the same variable is declared, and it does not have the 2* change. Maybe not needed there, but then again, there is no explanation about this patch.

can we please avoid it? I usually stick with the very same content as for the Debian uploads, to have delta just between the changelog files

>While we are at it, if a new upload would happen, it could also have these changes:
- run update-maintainer

same reason as above, I would like to avoid having to maintain two codebases, except for changelog file last entry

- while at it, the version could be changed to the SRU format, which in this case, would be 7.0.16-dfsg-2ubuntu0.1

I use the ~ approach, because in case of MRE a "backport" versioning makes the upgrade path work correctly.

>I didn't see anything in the diff, though, about the first change (build only the guest-* packages). It just has the same d/patch as virtualbox, for this bug. Is something missing?

yes, it has the patchset with the additional patch and just a changelog new entry.

> MRE

removed, I also would like to update to 7.0.18 later, but for now, better a quick SRU instead of a new MRE upload. (also because MRE is not whitelisted yet)