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

Re: c2a transition: libraries still needing transition



On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 16:59 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> The following libraries still need to be uploaded with name changes
> for the c2a transition
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/11/msg00010.html):
> Most are not in testing at the moment.
> 
>   alps-light1
>   aqsis
>   gnuift -- old version is in testing
>   ivtools -- orphaned, also hadn't undergone c2 transition properly
>   libsigcx
>   libterralib
>   log4cxx
>   omnievents
>   plptools
>   qgis

I'm working on this. libqgis has not been in a separate package and I'm
working on splitting it out.

Steve

>   rlog -- old version is in testing
>   sqlxx
>   xalan -- old version is in testing
>   vtk
>   zipios++ -- old version is in testing
> 
> The following packages appear to have deliberately skipped the renaming,
> so check what's up with debian-release before uploading:
> 
>   atlas-cpp
>   openalpp-cvs
>   osgal-cvs
>   osgcal
>   openvrml
> 
> In addition, the following libraries still need to be uploaded with name
> changes for the *c2* transition:
> 
>   log4cpp -- new maintainer needs a sponsor, see bug 303794
>   sp-gxmlcpp -- bug 333885, old version is in testing
>   wfnetobjs -- bug 332832, prevents wflogs from transitioning,
>                old version is in testing
> 
> This is the complete list.  (A few other packages are being removed or are
> in the NEW queue.)  I believe that 0-day NMUs are currently permitted
> for both transitions.
> 
> It would be very nice to finish these off.  Once all these libraries are
> transitioned, the remaining C++ programs using the old ABI can be queued for
> automatic binNMUs by the release team, so these are the only source uploads
> still needed just for the transition (not including uploads to fix FTBFSes,
> RC bugs, etc.)
> 
> -- 
> Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
> 
> Make sure your vote will count.
> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
> 
> 



Reply to: