Bug#826563: stable-updates fix for Bug#826563: perl: Apparent regression in TryCatch

[Dominic Hargreaves]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:33:15AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 00:46 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:54:23PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> [...]
> > > In hindsight, it's obvious that Debian's testing of this update wasn't
> > > sufficient either. Such breaking changes in perl stable updates are,
> > > I believe, exceedingly rare, but equally we had not attempted a wholesale,
> > > or near-wholesale update in Debian stable before, and the breakage
> > > wasn't reported in any real-world testing using the stable update
> > > installed from source. In future, we should perform similar automated
> > > testing against jessie-proposed-updates as we do in experimental when
> > > a new major version of perl is introduced.
> [...]
> > I've prepared an updated package of libdevel-declare-perl, which builds
> > and tests out fine with both perl 5.20.2-3+deb8u4 and 5.20.2-3+deb8u5.
> > 
> > A debdiff for stable is attached. Release team, are you happy for me
> > to upload (is the distribution correct for stable-updates)?
> 
> Yes, it is, in as much as one never uploads to stable-updates - one
> uploads to stable, via p-u, and we cherry-pick uploads from there
> sideways into -updates at our discretion once they're ready. Please go
> ahead with the upload to p-u and we'll see from there.
> 
> In general it's also preferable if a new release.d.o bug is filed to
> track the upload, rather than CCing debian-release on bugs belonging to
> another package.
> 
> (I realise that this is a regression, but the popcon stats for
> libdevel-declare-perl have a "recent" count of 10, which does make me
> wonder how wide an impact this is actually having in practice.)

Hi,

Now filed at #826622, thanks.

Dominic.