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

Re: neon transition



On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 10:13:58PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
>> There's an ongoing neon 0.24.x to 0.25.x transition in Sid. Most of the
>>packages are updated. There are some drawbacks at the moment:
>>1) Subversion is hold in the NEW queue since two weeks due to a binary
>>package rename.
>
>OOo will too, but the version not requiring neon (because temporarily
>built with internal one is in testing now, so..)
>
>>2) Thus even if the rapidsvn transition in done, its upload is waiting
>>on the new Subversion package.
>>3) There's no sense to allow neon to Etch until dependant packages are
>>not ready to enter Etch (Subversion is held, rapidsvn waits on it, etc).
>>May I ask Vorlon to put the neon Etch transition on hold?
>
>libneon25 won't enter etch till all dependent packages are rebuilt
>because it will break the old, unrebuilt packages when done so.
>
>>Other packages like davfs2 is told to be ready this week.

What about all the other packages involved in this transition?

I uploaded rpm and it will wait until neon and all its reverse
dependencies are hinted together.

libneon24
Reverse Depends:
  libsvn0
  subversion
  rapidsvn
  openoffice.org-core
  libsvn0
  librpm4
  libneon24-dev
  kdesvn
  kdesdk-misc
  davfs2
  tla
  bazaar

libneon24-dev
Reverse Depends:
  libsvn0-dev
  librpm-dev
  libsvn0-dev
  librpm-dev

>And you completely didn't inform your fellow maintainers about the plan,
>causing me to do a extra upload of openoffice.org for this (building
>with internal neon to fix its uninstallability in sid until 2.0.2-1 which
>can be built against libneon25 and is actually uploading atm).

Same problem with kdesvn, it will need an extra upload after
subversion is allowed in sid.

Regards,

Aníbal Monsalve Salazar
-- 
 .''`. Debian GNU/Linux
: :' : Free Operating System
`. `'  http://debian.org/
  `-   http://v7w.com/anibal

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: