update on CCL packaging status (resent)
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Far? wrote:
>> : Faheem Mitha
>> The main outstanding thing that (probably) should be fixed before the
>> CCL package itself is ready to be submitted to NEW is to remove the
>> local copy of ASDF from CCL and configure CCL to look for the Debian
>> installation of ASDF. I think at least Christoph Egger suggested this,
>> and it is clearly a good idea.
> That's a totally crazy thing to do, of the kind of horror that was
> necessary in the days of ASDF 1. Please don't do it. If Christoph
> suggested it, he might have been traumatized in those days.
> Please let CCL come with its own ASDF 3, or maybe ASDF 2, if you're
> packaging the CCL release rather than trunk.
> ASDF 3 is a big boy, and will upgrade itself to the version from debian,
> if available, and will know how NOT to downgrade itself, thank you.
Hi Far?.
Sorry, I did not mean to distress you.
I'm ccing Christoph and Peter in case they have comments.
My reasons for suggesting this is that it is in line with Debian
policy.that says you should not have local copies of libraries already in
the Debian archives.
Yes, I'd be packaging the release.
Can you elaborate on the reasons why looking to an external ASDF is not a
good idea? I assume that having multiple versions of ASDF in the archive
is Ok. This is done for lots of other packages.
In any case, the ftp masters will need to be ok with this.
Christoph/Peter/anybody, comments?
Regards, Faheem
Reply to: