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

miscfiles and malaga packages

For two of my packages, malaga and miscfiles, it's very very important
that the new versions enter sarge.

For miscfiles, this is just data (no programs), and the old data is
very out of date, and actually time-sensitive.  I just uploaded today;
the delay uploading was because the FSF was dithering about whether it
would make an upstream release of the new data, and RMS finally (grrr)
said to go ahead and make the Debian release without waiting further.

For malaga, this represents a "new" upstream version, very very
important, which fixes quite a few bugs and should not be delayed.
Without doubt, the bugs and problems it fixes are far worse than any
things introduced; the upstream version is not new to the world, only
new to Debian.

I really did upload malaga within the time in the release schedule,
but it involved an soname upgrade (don't worry, there are no Debian
packages which depend on the library in question), which required the
ftp masters to independently approve the new binary package.

Malaga is currently stalled getting in to testing for two reasons: the
autobuilders have still not gotten to it for arm, m68k, mips, and
mipsel; it took way long for the ftp masters to approve it (and so it
hasn't been in sid long); and it is waiting for gtk+2.0 and thus for

Finally, once libmalaga6 finally migrates, libmalaga2 needs to be
dropped; nothing depends on it (as I said) and the system should not
be bloated with it.  The relevant request can be found at bug 264125
against ftp.debian.org.


Reply to: