Re: Latest version of octave2.9-forge
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 03:54:46PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> Version 2006.07.09+dfsg1-6 of octave2.9-forge has been in unstable since 16
> days and has no bugs filed against it. Four bugs have been closed since the
> current version in testing (2006.07.09+dfsg1-4) was released: #393495,
> #403653, #403734, and #403864. None of these bugs were RC, but it would be
> good to have a bug-free version of octave2.9-forge in etch.
> However, before asking for hinting the latest version into etch, I need a
> clarification about a dependency issue, as shown in the page
> Dependency analysis (including build-depends; i386 only):
> * octave2.9-forge depends on libpng12-0 >= 1.2.8rel but testing has 1.2.15~beta5-1 (unstable has 1.2.15~beta5-1)
> o binary package libpng12-0 is part of source package libpng
> + libpng has the same version in unstable and testing (1.2.15~beta5-1)
> + info: libpng has a version in experimental (1.4.0~beta16-0)
> The only architecture in which octave2.9-forge depends on the old version of
> libpng12-0 is i386. Should I rebuild the package in an up-to-date etch
> chroot before asking for the hint?
No, the shlibs difference shouldn't be relevant here.
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:44:59AM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> May I then ask the release managers to hint octave2.9-forge_2006.07.09+dfsg1-6
> into etch?
The diff replaces the build-depends on tetex-bin with a build-depends on
tetex-bin | texlive-base-bin. I understand that for most of the texlive
packages, there's no clear mapping from the tetex packages. Can you tell me
how you arrived at this specific alternative? Has the documentation in the
two versions of the package been examined, to be sure nothing has broken or
Otherwise this update looks ok, and can unblock it once you confirm that the
tex alternative has been tested.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.