Re: Planning a GNUstep transition.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:37:22 -0700, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> said:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 08:09:39PM -0400, Hubert Chathi wrote:
>> Please let us know if we can go ahead with planning a transition, or
>> what steps we should be taking. We already have a fairly recent
>> version of gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, and gnustep-back in
>> experimental for maintainers to try compiling their packages against.
> Has comprehensive staging been done to make sure that these packages
> do all build from source in the new version, or are you just relying
> on maintainers to take advantage of what's in experimental?
OK, I have rebuilt all the GNUstep related packages, and they all build
fine (aside from the ones that I mentioned before that we will upload
manually) except for:
These need minor source fixes (missing #includes). These are
currently orphaned/ITAed, so I could upload fixed versions right away
which will build fine against the current GNUstep libraries, and then
they can be binNMUed when the libraries are ready, if that makes
things any easier. (The same could also be done for terminal.app, to
have one less package that we need to update by hand.)
Bigger problems (well, lusernet.app just has some missing #includes,
but I got tired of chasing them down). But Yavor tells me that these
packages have significant problems currently anyways, so we probably
wouldn't feel too bad if they were removed from testing in their
Let us know what else needs to be done, and if we can go ahead with this
transition. (And as usual, please Cc:
firstname.lastname@example.org.) The updated GNUstep
packages have been uploaded to experimental, and have all passed through
the NEW queue except for gnustep-gui, which was rejected due to license
issues which have now been resolved.
Hubert Chathi <email@example.com> -- Jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA