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

Re: Accepted cif-tools 1.0.0-4 (source) into unstable

Hi Maarten,

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 04:55:31PM +0100, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote:
> Hi Nilesh,
> I see you're updating these tools depending on libcifpp. Cool, saves me some
> work.

I am actually not actively working on libcifpp. I uploaded cif-tools since
a bug was lying unfixed there, and needed a simple recompilation.
And I did a source-only for libcifpp since this was creating a autoremoval havoc :)

> But are you planning to re-submit libpdb-redo as well? That would solve a
> lot of issues with potential removals from testing.

I don't plan to do this yet, but if this is very high prio then....

> E.g., libzeep is threatened to be be kicked out due to the fact that a test
> in libpdb-redo links against libzeep5.1 itself and via libpdb-redo to
> libzeep5.0 as well. And that crashes of course.


> Now I don't think a lot of other tools are using libpdb-redo yet. So simply
> recompiling libpdb-redo would solve this.

Right again.

> I can also do some work on this, but it is perhaps not smart to work on this
> concurrently, some scheduling might be appropriate.

It'd be nice if you could carry fwd the work here. I'm sorry that we ran into a race-condition.
Since you already have DM perms on these, please make desired changes and dput as needed.

Admittedly, I need to focus my energies on other set of packages for now. Hope you understand.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: