Re: Bug#456133: qiv imlib
+ Bart Martens (Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:01:46 +0200):
> On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 10:09 +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > I suggest somebody packages pqiv, we let it migrate to testing, and then
> > we remove imlib11 and qiv from testing once icewm has stopped using it.
> > I don’t mind that we leave qiv around in unstable for users who may not
> > be happy with pqiv, and to “wait and see” if upstream moves and ends up
> > upgrading to imlib2. But if Squeeze comes and this has not happened, we
> > should remove qiv from unstable as well I think.
> > Bart, thanks for the pointer to pqiv: would you be up to packaging it?
> > I’m a qiv user myself, and after compiling it here, it seems to fill the
> > niche gracefully. If not, I’ll file a RFP.
> > Thoughts on this plan?
> Good plan. I just uploaded pqiv
Aha. I’m CCing Andreas Metzler, though he problably read your mail via
-release or something: he managed to file ITP #524569 roughly an hour
before you filed #524578, but since he said “I am not stuck on
maintaining this myself”, he’ll hopefully not mind you having prepared
and uploaded your own as well.
> I chose to package pqiv without "Conflicts/Provides/Replaces qiv". At
> least for now.
Yes, I think not going Conflict/Provides/Replaces for now is a good
choice (people can try it without uninstalling qiv, etc.). Just remember
to do the dance if qiv doesn’t make it to Squeeze after all.
> I see that qiv upstream has a new developer, so maybe
> the imlib problem in qiv gets solved before squeeze freeze.
> "Qiv is not longer supported by me (Adam Kopacz),
> please visit the new Homepage: spiegl.de/qiv"
Ah, that’s great; ideally both maintainers of qiv and pqiv should be
made aware one of another if it hasn’t happened already. :-)
- Are you sure we're good?
-- Rory and Lorelai