[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#192101: We need gnucash in stable


sorry to bug you again, and for "escalating" this to debian-devel, but
something needs to be done. For those just joining us:

gnucash (the probably most complete wand fit-for-real-use financing
program in debian) is not in testing for sarge at all. While the package
works very well for all users that get a binary, it just does not build
on some architectures (arm, hppa, m68k, mips{,el}). The problem lies in
the deep of some guile test in the gnucash testsuite, and is somehow
related to a random generater. Anyway, the maintainer tried to fix it,
upstream worked on it, but nothing helped yet, and nothing probably
won't help - at least within the next few weeks.

I would argue that it would be the best for our users if we put gnucash
in testing on the arches it builds, and leave the others out until they
are fixed. This would 
 * give the majority (i386, powerpc, etc) of our future sarge users this
 * have most of our woody users still have gnucash in their debian when
they upgrade
 * is absolutely no worse for those on the failing architectures, since
they won't have gnucash either way
 * if we fix the problem, we can add more architectures (for the same
version) in a sarge-r1-release.

The problem is that http://www.debian.org/devel/testing.en.html states:
> 2. It must be compiled and up to date on all architectures it has
previously been compiled for in unstable;

So I am basically calling for an exception here.

with regards


PS: I wonder: why is the architecture count compared to prior versions
in _unstable_, while the RC-Bug count is compared to the RC-Bug count of
the perior version in _testing_? Seems to be inconsequent. Why not have
the line say:
> 2. It must be compiled and up to date on all architectures it has
previously been compiled for in testing; ?

Am Di, den 16.09.2003 schrieb Joachim Breitner um 16:52:
> Am Di, 2003-09-16 um 16.33 schrieb James A. Treacy:
> > I tried this before the last release and the archive maintainers were
> > not receptive to the idea(**). If we can get the archive maintainers to
> > agree to this I am all for it.
> You mean before woody? Then maybe it was because there was a version
> available in testing (1.6.6), but now there is none. Otherwise I don't
> know what. Anyway, we should try to ask again. GnuCash ist quite
> important, and our problem is at least not a questions of Freeness,
> which are really tough to find a consensus sometimes.
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
  e-Mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de
  JID: joachimbreitner@amessage.de | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189
  Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V?
            PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+>* h! z?
Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge.
Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply to: