Bug#599472: Permission to upload opensync-0.22 to testing-proposed-updates
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 09:26:40PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 20:49 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 20:58:07 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> >
> > > Uploading this would make it possible to potentially transition the barry and
> > > synce-sync-engine packages (which I believe were removed due to opensync), as
> > > well as the currently still at 0.22 kdepim plugin and the multisync0.90
> > > package in unstable. Other still at 0.22 plugins in unstable could be
> > > transitioned as well, but they are less important.
> > >
> > > Further testing-proposed-updates uploads of the file and evolution2
> > > plugins should be done as well, as they are quite central.
> > >
> > OK, let's go ahead with this.
>
> opensync was uploaded and has now built everywhere; I've approved it so
> it should enter testing in the next britney run.
>
> The -file and -evolution2 plugins are in NEW as of a few hours ago. Are
> there any tpu uploads remaining?
I just checked, and all the other ones are in unstable. Except for the
syncml-plugin/libsyncml, but as I said before, the current libsyncml in
testing is not working with the 0.22 syncml-plugin, and reverting this
is not worth the effort - also now that I believe syncevolution gets
fixed up for squeeze.
The question is which packages to transition from unstable, at least
multisync0.90, libopensync-plugin-python are essential and
libopensync-plugin-kdepim, barry and synce-sync-engine would make sense
(although I do not maintain the latter two). I don't see any RC bugs on
them except for the 0.22 vs. 0.39 related ones.
Other plugins (like libopensync-plugin-gpe,
libopensync-plugin-google-calendar etc. would be nice, but I am not sure
what the release team's feeling are here.
Regards,
Michael
Reply to: