On 03/26/2013 06:44 AM, Jakub Adam wrote: > Hi Emmanuel, > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, 12:57:32 CET, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org > <mailto:ebourg@apache.org>> wrote: >> I've read the mail, but I was under the impression that this wasn't a >> definitive no to bnd in core Ubuntu components. Does this mean we should >> remove bnd from all packages? > > No, only from packages that are part of Ubuntu master or core system > repository - commons compress is such a case. Packages from universe are > fine to depend on bnd. How to check whether package is in Ubuntu master > was described by James. > > I don't think including bnd and all its dependencies into core is a top > priority at Ubuntu so I would rather use static manifests inside the few > affected packages than to slow down our own progress of uploads waiting > for Ubuntu's decision. Ah, thanks for pointing that out - I wasn't clear on the distinction. So, the package is pretty much ready to go. To answer Emmanuel's question about changelog entries, yes, I was planning on merging 1.4-3 into 1.5-1 before the upload. The only outstanding question is whether the package should go into experimental or unstable. For the time-being, I tend to think that experimental is the right choice for a new upstream version. We can re-upload to unstable as soon as we know that wheezy is out the door. Thank you, tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature