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

Re: Fixes in zopectl Re: Removing zope

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 11:55:18AM -0500, David Coe wrote:
> Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:

> > Gregor Hoffleit writes:
> >> * Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> [040403 12:25]:
> >> > Steve Langasek writes:

> >> > The zope maintainers seem to be quiet ... Please before removing
> >> > qmtest, let me separate out the python-extclass package from the zope
> >> > package.

> >> No reaction from Luca indeed, but Andrea is suggesting to upgrade to his
> >> 2.7.0-13 package. During the next week, I'll try and see if that sounds
> >> possible and feasable without breaking to much other packages. Fixing
> >> the grave bugs in 2.6.4 doesn't look impossible, but then, I really
> >> don't like to mess with Luca's zopectl code...

> > that would be great, to have plone-2.0 in sarge ...

> That's a great idea, though plone 2.0 doesn't actually *need* zope 2.7
> (it works with 2.6 as well).

> I'm fixing the remaining zope 'grave' bugs, all with small changes in
> zopectl.  I'll NMU it tonight, I believe.  

> QUESTION: is an NMU to unstable with priority high sufficient to get
> this into testing, or do I have to upload to testing-proposed-updates
> (or someplace else) as well?

Since testing has not been frozen, an upload to unstable is sufficient.
It will still take a few days to propagate, of course, but removing zope
from testing would be enough of a PITA that just about any progress at
all will be enough to convince me not to remove it. ;)

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: