In the process of fixing one RC bug (#359299) in order to fix another (#289668) I am testing a possible fix for two other related bugs in the first package (g-wrap) : 428800 and 383049 (just merged). The related bug is currently only normal severity: "g-wrap binary package depends on libgwrap-runtime0-dev instead libgwrap-runtime0" "Please drop guile-1.6-dev dependency for Gnucash" guile-1.6-dev becomes part of the GnuCash dependency chain due to g-wrap depending on libgwrap-runtime0-dev. I have permission from the GnuCash maintainer for that NMU and I have waited for a reply from the g-wrap maintainer without a response on my NMU for 359299. Neither 428800 nor 383049 have any response from the g-wrap maintainer (Andreas Rottmann) in the bug reports although he is active (entry in debian-devel-changes for 7/7/07). So I'm asking here - Andreas, if you are around, do you agree that g-wrap should not depend on libgwrap-runtime0-dev but libgwrap-runetime0 instead? Are you in a position to upload a fix or can I include it in my existing NMU? Everyone else: If Andreas does not respond, is there any way of fixing 428800 and 383049? Are the issues worth an RC bug anyway? I don't mind making two NMU's, if that helps clarify the different issues. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpQLSmp3TLIs.pgp
Description: PGP signature