Re: RFS: poco (updated package)
> I'm still waiting for an answer to this:
Do you think that a symbols file will be the correct solution? I didn't check
the ABI history of poco, so i don't know if it is backward compatible and if
this is a goal of upstream.
> You are violating what is allowed in policy wrt Maintainer: field . As a
> result, that confuses lintian believing your upload is meant to be NMU
I corrected it.
> Is the original maintainer (CC'ed) aware of you being a co-maintainer?
Yes, he is.
I also uploaded a new upstream version 1.3.6p1.