Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org> writes: > Sometime ago I was asked for the new gnome-mag package so that a new > version of gnopernicus would be uploaded. Problem was it changed soname, > so I end up f*cking the unstable version of gnopernicus. I then fixed > the problem with an epoch'ed version and prepared the new upload with > the name change for experimental so it would go through NEW. > > Now it's there since some small amount of time and the GNOME Team is > preparing some more soname shifts, so I would like to propose that we > coordinate into putting the new gnome-mag and gnopernicus packages into > unstable. > > What do you say? I'd be all for it. Gnopernicus 0.9.19 is now in experimental compiled against the new gnome-mag since some days. All the really important backports (BrlAPI related) are done, tested, and work. One user even reports[1] that the version of gnopernicus in testing/unstable (0.8.4) does not work for him at all, while the new version from experimental does. I can not reproduce this, but I guess it might be related to the fact that gnopernicus 0.8.4 is really for the GNOME 2.6 branch. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/2005/01/msg00000.html -- CYa, Mario
Attachment:
pgpPZJvxpl4nt.pgp
Description: PGP signature