Re: libkpathsea3 removal: Please trigger bin-NMU recompilations of the following packages
On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 05:37:19PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
>
> >> and concluded that the only problem would be that some buildds might
> >> have libkpathsea3's dev package already installed.
> >
> > Oh, sorry; the fact that the libkpathsea3 source package still includes
> > libkpathsea-dev confused madison (and me) into thinking this was still the
> > old libkpathsea-dev.
>
> The libkpathsea-dev package from the libkpathsea3 source package *is*
> the old libkpathsea-dev - but I think you know that and I only don't
> understand what you wanted to say.
Yeah, but that binary package is gone anyway since there can only be
one binary package with a given name per arch. The current -dev
package is the archive is build from tetex-bin.
> > (This is an RC bug on libkpathsea3, btw, since that
> > package can no longer be uploaded in its present state...)
>
> A RC which hopefully can be resolved soon by removing the package. Do
> you think I need to file it?
It never hurts to document such facts... But filing the RM bug is
probably more important I guess ;)
> >> > If you remove libkpathsea-dev from the libkpathsea3 package (or drop
> >> > libkpathsea3 altogether from unstable), then it should be possible to binNMU
> >> > these
> >
> >> Dropping completely would be a task for the ftpmaster, correct?
> >
> > Yes, upon request of the package maintainer.
>
> Hm, but you agree that it is not necessary to remove the libkpathsea-dev
> binary package from sid (or sid and etch); we can instead wait until we
> can remove the complete libkpathsea3 stuff, right?
Which binary do you mean? The one that is build from libkpathsea3 (which
is already gone anyway) or the current one?
I hope I didn't add to the confusion :)
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: