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

Re: Release Update - proposed packages



Hi Bob,

On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:32:26PM -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org wrote:

> >   * Where possible, avoid new major upstream versions of other packages.
> >     If in any doubt about whether an upgrade is appropriate, contact the
> >     release team.

>      I have been planning to package and upload two new upstream
> versions of existing packages, and request the release team's OK.

>      1. dictd-1.9.13 - According to the changelog, this release is
>         mainly code cleanup and bug fixes.  The bug fixes appear to
>         apply to obscure bugs that have not been reported in Debian,
>         or to environments other than Debian.  The only new feature is
>         a plugin that permits using a SQL server as a DICT database.
>         (Because access to header files and some programming knowledge
>         is needed to setup a plugin, I have shipped README files about
>         plugins in the Debian package, but have not included plugin
>         libraries or compiled plugins in the package.)  As with any
>         new version, bugs are always possible.

>      2. dict-foldoc - The FOLDOC does not have versions and releases
>         as usually understood.  The dictionary is updated almost every
>         night, and is downloadable from the home page.  I have planned
>         to release a new Debian package every 4 to 6 weeks, but have
>         seldom kept to that schedule.  The current package is about 6
>         months old.  In the past, bugs filed against dict-foldoc have
>         almost all been requests for updating certain definitions or
>         for additional definitions, with an occasional minor packaging
>         bug.  I do not believe a new dict-foldoc package would
>         present a problem for sarge.

>      Please let me know if you consider these packages acceptable for
> upload. 

Since neither of these packages is at the base of a complicated
dependency tree, there are no troubling outstanding bugs against the
the packages, and these uploads don't seem to represent particularly
major upstream changes, I can see no reason that these uploads would be
objectionable.

Regards,
-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: