On 10/10/2015 05:13 AM, Gilles Filippini wrote: > Hi Tony, > > Thank you for uploading gluegen2 2.3.1 to experimental. As you may have > read in #779482 I'm trying to have gluegen2 usable on arch ppc64el. I've > set up some patches against your last upload and the good news is that I > achieved similar test suite results for amd64 and ppc64el. > > I wonder what you prefer: I submit my patches to you or - as a Debian > java maintainer - I work directly into the package's git repository and > upload to unstable. What do you think? Hi Gilles, That's great progress on ppc64el - thank you for working on that. If you don't mind committing directly to packaging repo, that's my preference. (A bit of an aside, but I'm happy to see the Java Team get better at team-maintaining packages. In my mind, that means that *I* need to make it a habit to follow the good examples that other developers have set - e.g. declaring myself the owner of a bug, using RFH when needed, and generally being more collaborative.) Regarding an upload to unstable, note that gluegen2 and libjogl2 are basically a matched set, and so in order to avoid generating FTBFS bugs in unstable, we need to get libjogl2 updated as well. Therefore, I suggest applying your patches and uploading 2.3.1-2 to experimental, where it is easily accessible for working on the update to libjogl2 and eventually scilab. After you apply your patches, we can also look at updating gluegen to 2.3.2. Cheers, tony
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature