Re: hint for libofx
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:29:24PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:33:36PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> I think a hint for libofx is in order to complete its transition, if I
> >> understand everything right.
> > Your subsequent mails suggest you might already know this, but:
> > gnucash (2.0.1-2 to 2.0.1-3)
> > Maintainer: Thomas Bushnell, BSG
> > Too young, only 8 of 10 days old
> > out of date on m68k: gnucash (from 1.8.10-19) (but m68k isn't keeping up, so nevermind)
> > Not considered
> > Depends: gnucash dbus
> > Depends: gnucash libofx
> > Depends: gnucash fontconfig (not considered)
> > not going anywhere until fontconfig and, subsequently, dbus, are ready; and
> > then it needs to go in together with dbus.
> Um, the new gnucash does depend on the new libofx. But the converse
> is *not* true.
> According to what I can see:
> * Updating libofx makes 2 depending packages uninstallable on i386:
> grisbi, kmymoney2
That's not consistent with the britney output:
skipped: libofx (35 <- 587)
got: 8+0: i-8
* i386: gnucash, grisbi, kmymoney2
Nor is it consistent with what I see currently listed on haxx.se.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.