Re: RFS: emerald
> I reviewed it, and it appears to work just fine.
Thank you for a review.
> There's a lot of warnings about gratuitous linkage of unnecessary libs, but
> that's mostly an upstreamish problem.
I was thinking of patching this, but maybe for the next revision...
> The only big issue I noticed is that the package is targetted at
> experimental instead of unstable -- is there any reason for that?
Experimental is targeted because of the freeze and this will be in
new. If you think that unstable is acceptable, I'm glad to change?