Re: Why was libpam-pgsql removed from the woody lineup?
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:40:04AM -0700, David D.W. Downey wrote:
> Just wondering why libpam-pgsql was removed from the woody lineup.
It has not. Check madison's output on pandora.
> As of libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3, libpam-pgsql has been built against
> libpgsql2, not libpgsql2.1.
>
> Also, CJ Watson erroneously filed a bug against that version simply
> because it depended on libpgsql. He erroneously assumed that that
> meant it must be dependant on libpgsql2.1
No, when I filed those bugs I did check the version of libpgsql2.1
involved and I probably hadn't yet seen your new version (I checked the
archive, although not incoming).
(Actually, I don't remember filing any bug against libpam-pgsql. But if
you say so I suppose it must be true, I go through quite a lot of bugs.)
> As the following output shows, 0.5.2-3 depends on 2.7.2. Since
> libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3 was a fix for the libpgsql2.1 problem, why has this
> not been pushed into woody for the current release? There are no RC bugs
> against it and there is only a single "Important" bug filed against
> it. (#138602: libpam-pgsql: error in manual)
See the thread about postgresql. None of the new versions of
libpgsql-dependent packages can go into woody until all (or almost all)
of them are fixed.
Check update_output.txt. It has much more information about this kind of
thing than update_excuses.html.
> Could someone please explain to me why 0.5.2-3 will not be available for
> the woody release since it was a fix for the 0.5.2-2 version which was
> yanked from woody
I don't know what you're reading, but it's not the same thing as me ...
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: