Re: xconq (was: [2002-02-22] Release Status Update)
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Martin Quinson wrote:
> I guess it's too late to package a new version of the package, sadly. Should
> woody wait 3 weeks to have it entering afterward ? Or are you planning to
> upload untested software to testing ? :)
I suggest to package thtest version if it fixes all bugs. Working on
the really outdated version would be stupid. If I understand it right
it is not to late to get it into woody if you upload fast. Unfortunately
I have no time currently, but if I should do an NMU I would gladly do that.
Hint: If you package from scratch (which might be a very good idea) please
split up into xconq (architecture dependend binary) and
xconq-common or xconq-data (or whatever) which contains architecture
independent stuff to avoid bloating the archive.
> I also would like to use xconq, if the packaged version would be more
> recent. But I'm ok having it dropped from this release if it permits to do a
> quick release, and if woody + 1 comes quickly, too (what I expect to happen,
> If you want to keep it into woody, just make an upload applying the given
> patch which was reviewed by upstream...
As I said: Get rid of this outdated old stuff and take the new one.