Hiya, (please keep pkg-cli-libs-team@ldo cced in replies) On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 02:12:21AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote:
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition [...] libevolution5.0-cil (src:evolution-sharp) is basically broken; it hasn't been ported to evolution-data-server 2.28 and fails to build against it. The bug has been sent upstream but upstream say no more than "yes, we should fix this". It might be possible to just override the check and make it build, or that might result in another FTBFS, or a broken build... perhaps the e-d-s or evo# maintainers could suggest how to move forward? If evo# (132 popcon votes) was removed, we'd lose tasque, gfax, gnome-do-plugins and beagle (34, 42, 347 and 939 popcon votes respectively). gnome-do-plugins and beagle could presumably both be compiled with Evolution support disabled, if evo# remains broken for long enough to make it necessary? [...]
I/we (pkg-cli-libs) aren't sure how upstream determines compatibility. We have been thinking about disabling evo# compatibility for some time now, and indeed did this in the gnome-do-plugins package. It's probably a good idea to do this as far as we can for the other packages, and then to maybe investigate bumping compatibility in evo# and bringing back packages when they are known to be work (or to hassle upstream more).
I'm concerned that we don't want to hold back a transition, but also that this situation should not be permenant — so evo# should be removed from testing but should be retained (as broken) in unstable, in order to allow us to fix in a reasonable amount of time.
Does that sound possible? Iain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature