On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 21:49:33 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > So from here I see some options (with my opinion in parentheses) > i) Removing PySide from Squeeze > (I think it would be sad). > ii) Keeping the current PySide in Squeeze and request the maintainer (me) to > provide patched versions > (This option needs hard work for me, with unknown success chances. The > fallback being the removal (i) doesn't help.) > iii) Allow the PySide version currently in experimental to unstable->squeeze > (This is IMHO the easiest way to fix the RCs while still being zero-risk and > also implies an "almost-1.0" PySide for Squeeze, which would be > satisfactory for both upstream and myself.) > iv) Allow me to upload the latest upstream releases to experimental and report > the discussion to later times, with more recent upstream releases > (This is obviously the preferred solution for upstream who doesn't want > "outdated" versions in distributions. I very much understand why allowing > this could not be possible. Furthermore, two updates that upstream wanted > in are already in as patches [0,1], with one "cheated in" (it breaks the > API, but I kept the SOVERSION) > > So personally I would rank the options from latter to first: iv) is preferable, > i) is the least preferable. > I would rank them pretty much the opposite way. It seems to me that if the bindings are still fast moving then whatever version we ship will be too old when users for them appear. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature