Re: Proposed library transition: sword, bibletime, gnomesword
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 12:29:36PM +0000, Daniel Glassey wrote:
> On 19/11/06, Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 11:08:25AM +0000, Daniel Glassey wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >> I am requesting permission to upload new packages to unstable for the
> >> sword source package.
> >> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/sword
> >> The only binary packages that depend on this are gnomesword and
> >> bibletime so the transition will not affect anyone else. I also maintain
> >> these and request permission to update them to the current releases.
> >Yes, please go ahead.
> This has taken longer than I wanted. :/
> There is a new stable release of gnomesword. version 2.2
> I still need to upload bibletime to fix #331547 and other RC bugs
> bibletime 1.6.2 requires a small patch to libsword to fix a crash
> So I'm requesting permission to upload new versions of sword (1.5.9-3)
> urgency high. gnomesword (2.2-1) and bibletime (1.6.2-1) and
> bibletime-i18n (1.6.2-1)
Yes, this is still fine.
> Will it be possible for bibletime to get back into testing with this
> upload (assuming everything goes to plan)?
Probably not. Having this library transition in unstable is ok, but it's
unlikely that the release team will have time to deal with considering such
a library transition for etch, self-contained or not.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.