Re: [RFC] subversion upload for squeeze - what to include
On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 11:43 +0000, peter green wrote:
> >> Looks like if I build for unstable, I'll pick up a Depends on
> >> libneon27-gnutls (>= 0.29.5) which isn't in testing. Should I target
> >> TPU instead?
> >Unfortunately t-p-u isn't an option in this case, as the package has the
> >same version in testing and unstable (dak requires that t-p-u uploads
> >satisfy testing < t-p-u < unstable).
> Would a sensible approach be to upload the package to unstable? then if
> dependencies turn out to be a problem make another upload as appropriate.
Hopefully neon is well on the way to being sorted out so personally I'd
prefer to wait for the moment.
> That way the changes get tested in unstable sooner rather than later and
> if a TPU upload is needed it becomes possible.
If we can get neon sorted quickly, then making two essentially identical
uploads would be redundant. t-p-u is also somewhat complicated in this
case by the fact that the most recent upload FTBFS on hurd-i386 which
means there's no way right now to generate a t-p-u version number which
would satisfy dak's versionning constraints as the 1.6.12dfsg-1 source
is still in unstable (and removing subversion/hurd-i386 from unstable
doesn't really look like a viable option).