Hi Ralf, On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 08:08:31PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 12:51:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:28:26AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > I uploaded texmacs 1.0.5-2 into unstable on Wednesday April 27. It > > > is autobuilt on all architectures (including arm, contrary to > > > what the Excuses say). The uplaod was done with urgency=low. > > > There are two binary packages (texmacs and texmacs-common). > > > Is it possible to still let it into sarge? > > Only if you can explain why a new upstream release is needed for sarge. The > > changelog gives nothing to indicate this should be a high priority. > There are quite some improvements in the new upstream version 1.0.5 > which are only listed on the project homepage (copy attached to this > mail). > Besides it closes two bugs (none of which RC) which are now tagged "sarge", > #302566 and #272652. I forgot to mention this in the changelog since > these bugs where already fixed in the "experimental" distribution. > Most (or all) of the upstream improvements have already been distributed > earlier through packages in the experimenal distribution, and hence are > already tested by users of the experimental packages. Sorry, there are too many release-critical issues that need to be dealt with to justify spending the time to review such a large diff as the one for texmacs 1.0.5-2, particularly for the low-priority issues you mention above. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature