Hi Mehdi, please ... lets try to avoid finger pointing! On Tuesday 02 February 2010 10:37:55 Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > Jan Wagner wrote: > > Okay ... lets summarize what we have concluded in our discussion: > > > > * My dh-ocaml upload was rather suboptimal. > > > > From my POV, it would be nice if such a behavior (raising build-deps for > > transioning) is documented in a prominent place, for example > > README.source in all involved packages. This would life making easier for > > people outside the OCalm Group to understand the work(flow), for example > > when bughunting (on BSP or where ever) and even backporting. This should > > result into making your life easier too. :) > > There was a version bump for dh-ocaml from 0.4 to (directly) 0.9. > Shouldn't that warrant the backporter somehow? And in general, asking I was just refering to the raised dependencies for transition reasons. As it seems that's a usual procedere in your group, why not leave a hint in every involved package? In my eyes the changelog could be missinterpreted. > the usual maintainer doesn't harm so that you're sure about the > implications of the backport. I totally agree with you (and I think I stated this more than once in this recent discussion). Unfortunately my experiences in the past was often, that maintainers often don't care about backporting (,even of stable and old- stable). This is absolutly not true in general and I had also positive experiences here. With kind regards, Jan. -- Never write mail to <email@example.com>, you have been warned! -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d-- s+: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L+++ E--- W+++ N+++ o++ K++ w--- O M V- PS PE Y++ PGP++ t-- 5 X R tv- b+ DI D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.