UVF Exception: vnc4 (now sync request)

Here is the diffstat of the tarballs

Here is a diff of the Debian changelogs

Need more info - the diffstat looks broken - is there no upstream changelog or something?

Ok, I had a quick look. Grab a seat before reading, stop drinking or you'll snort it on your nice flat screen: 12092 files changed, 4272160 insertions(+), 58741 deletions(-)

ROCK ON! Ok guys, the world has changed, let's get it in and be happy about the new world order.

Ok, all jokes aside, I can see that directories were shuffled around a bit and I suggest diff'ing the 4 ChangeLogs this thing has. I tried to get vnc building in the past and it's a major pain and we should test it, judge by Debian's bugs and try to get this in (safely). As nobody in the team has the expertise to handle this tool much users will like to use.

Ok forget the ChangeLogs.

This is the only bit I could gather:
--- vnc4-4.0/zlib/ChangeLog 2002-08-27 23:20:05.000000000 +0200
+++ vnc4-4.1.1+X4.3.0/common/zlib/ChangeLog 2004-07-07 16:21:49.000000000 +0200
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@
 - use _fdopen instead of fdopen for MSC >= 6.0 (Thomas Fanslau)
 - added makelcc.bat for lcc-win32 (Tom St Denis)
 - in Makefile.dj2, use copy and del instead of install and rm (Frank Donahoe)
-- Avoid expanded $Id$. Use "rcs -kb" or "cvs admin -kb" to avoid Id expansion.
+- Avoid expanded $Id: ChangeLog,v 1.1.1.1 2004/07/07 14:21:49 jnw Exp $. Use "rcs -kb" or "cvs admin -kb" to avoid Id expansion.
 - check for unistd.h in configure (for off_t)
 - remove useless check parameter in inflate_blocks_free
 - avoid useless assignment of s->check to itself in inflate_blocks_new

(from the internal copy of zlib - DOUBLE YUCK)

Sorry to be a pain, but any traction on this one gentlemen? Thanks!!

Ok, I now looked at the referenced bugs, and indeed, the current package seems broken beyond repair, and upgrading seems to make sense. The presented diffstat seems broken to me, could you please clarify about that?

If you say that you tested the upgraded package and it works for you, I'm all for upgrading.

Thanks for the ping, let's get this bug processed quickly

I stand by my word: looking at Debian's progress and bug reports, I'm happier to get known bugs fixed than to make a fuss about a inscrutable diffstat - Reinhard, Sebastian?

fine with me

ok. Barry, could you please handle the upload/sync?

OK, I have gotten approval from motu-uvf team. Can we please sync vnc4 4.1.1+X4.3.0-7 from Debian Unstable? Thank you.

Sorry to come back to you after this long discussion, but OK to overwrite Ubuntu changes?

[NOT Updating - Modified] vnc4_4.1.1-0ubuntu4 (vs 4.1.1+X4.3.0-10)

Also, can somebody quickly check over the diff from -7 to -10?

I don't see a -10 in unstable? Is that in experimental? Also, I don't see any Ubuntu changes in the current version other than two rebuilds? In either case, here is a diff of -7 to -9. A diffstat to follow. Thanks Colin!

Here ya go.

-10 is unstable now, please redo the diff for that

Also still need confirmation that it's ok to override Ubuntu changes

Scott. I don't see this. The first page says -10 but going to the source page only gives me -9 .dsc files? http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/vnc4

OK, now I'm really confused. Apparently someone brought in 4.1.1.

vnc4 (4.1.1-0ubuntu4) dapper; urgency=low

  * Update xorg-server to 1.0.2-0ubuntu9.
  * Apply the Ubuntu patches.
  * Add xorg-server's build dependencies to the build depenencies.

 -- Matthias Klose <email address hidden> Mon, 8 May 2006 13:29:03 +0000

vnc4 (4.1.1-0ubuntu3) dapper; urgency=low

  * Update xorg-server to 1.0.2.

 -- Matthias Klose <email address hidden> Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:01:03 +0200

vnc4 (4.1.1-0ubuntu1) dapper; urgency=low

  * Unknown changes.

 -- Bjoern Brauel <email address hidden> Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:01:03 +0200

vnc4 (4.1.1-0ubuntu1) dapper; urgency=low

  * New upstream version.

 -- Matthias Klose <email address hidden> Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:54:14 +0100

Diff of -7 vs -10 And yes, the ubuntu changes can be dropped. I am however doing another quick rebuild to make sure -10 builds OK now.

Diffstat

OK, the -10 release builds fine as well. So yes, we can drop the Ubuntu changes. Thanks again!

Done

[Updating] vnc4 (4.1.1-0ubuntu4 [Ubuntu] < 4.1.1+X4.3.0-10 [Debian])
 * Trying to add vnc4...
  - <vnc4_4.1.1+X4.3.0-10.dsc: downloading from http://ftp.debian.org/debian/>
  - <vnc4_4.1.1+X4.3.0.orig.tar.gz: downloading from http://ftp.debian.org/debian/>
  - <vnc4_4.1.1+X4.3.0-10.diff.gz: downloading from http://ftp.debian.org/debian/>
I: vnc4 [universe] -> vnc4server_4.1.1-0ubuntu4 [universe].
I: vnc4 [universe] -> xvnc4viewer_4.1.1-0ubuntu4 [universe].
I: vnc4 [universe] -> vnc4-common_4.1.1-0ubuntu4 [universe].

Please could you give a reason, why you want to keep these Xfree86 server sources in dapper, instead of the xorg sources? Is there something, which doesn't work with the xorg based build? I intend to overwrite this package again, unless you give a rationale for overwriting that package. Xfree86 gives an unnecessary maintainance burden.

Matthias. No not at all. The whole reason I brought it in from Debian was because the newer release at least checked for xorg and built/installed successfully. If you have one that rips out the xfree86 stuff, please feel free. Thank you.

Barry deFreese schrieb:
> Matthias. No not at all. The whole reason I brought it in from Debian
> was because the newer release at least checked for xorg and
> built/installed successfully. If you have one that rips out the xfree86
> stuff, please feel free. Thank you.

ok, uploading the xorg version again. please check first for the version
in the current archive next time ;)

setting to rejected; uploaded the xorg based version again.