Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com> (18/07/2007):
> > Are the POD-maintained packages ready for a 2.1 to 2.9 switch?
> Mostly, yes. Octaviz in its current archived version is not, but that
> is already resolved upstream.
OK, thanks for the overview.
> Octave 2.1 and 2.9 have their trunk in the octave/ subdirectory. We
> don't do much development with 2.1 anymore, so we use just one
> changelog/trunk for both.
Yeah, I understood that part but I was feeling strange there was no
occurrences of ``gfortran'' in the current trunk. I think I misread
(swapped to/from) the following entry the first time:
| octave2.9 (1:2.9.12-2) unstable; urgency=low
|
| * debian/in/control, debian/rules:
| + Switch back to g77 from gfortran (closes: #427257).
| This has been discussed with the toolchain guys and is the easist
| solution for now, see
| http://lists.debian.org/debian-gcc/2007/06/msg00024.html
I also missed the fact that octave2.9-headers, unlike octave2.1-headers,
depend on g77 and not gfortran, hence my confusion, sorry.
Anyway, I see the following short terms solution:
- since octave2.1 isn't that updated nowadays, would it be problematic
to copy the 1:2.1.73-13 tag to a 1:2.1.73-14 one, and adjusting:
+ s/gfortran/g77/
+ myself in Uploaders
[I know about the fact that tags are intended to be used only for
released versions, but that would help the backporting, don't you
think?]
- update the versioned B-D on octave2.1-headers for each package
needing to be fixed.
I know I shouldn't be afraid to commit, but the first point goes against
the DOG guidelines, that's why I'm asking first. Anyhow I have to test
that this works first, so I can afford myself waiting a bit for an
answer before committing. ;-)
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois
Attachment:
pgp1XA7icqiJ9.pgp
Description: PGP signature