Bug#672142: transition: allegro4.4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Am 04.06.2012 01:05, schrieb Cyril Brulebois:
> Tobias Hansen <tobias.han@gmx.de> (04/06/2012):
>> I thought removing allegro4.2 would be the next step. But now
>> that you say it, that's not necessary, because liballegro4.2-dev
>> was replaced, right? Also alogg and allegro-demo-data, but
>> they're also no obstacle for the transition, except that alogg
>> will FTBFS with allegro4.4.
>
> Since that's a new source package, there are no âout-of-dateâ
> binaries, which is the usual case (source packages dropping
> binaries, meaning they need to be removed from unstable once
> packages are binNMUd to link against new packages). That can be
> checked on the excuses page:
> http://release.debian.org/britney/update_excuses.html#allegro4.4
>
> As for alogg/allegro-demo-data, we'll see what to do with those
> when allego4.4 becomes a candidate for migration.
>
> Right now, I'm a little worried about the ia64 FTBFS. allegro4.2
> was building fine there, so we're likely to have packages that
> won't be buildable any more. That should be solvable by getting
> those packages removed on ia64 only, until the ICE (Internal
> Compiler Error) is fixed; but we'll have to check what happens with
> reverse dependencies⦠There might be better ways, though. (Trying
> to reproduce the ICE and filing a bug report in both the
> debian/upstream bug tracker would be nice in any case.)
>
> Mraw, KiBi.
I have just requested access to an ia64 porterbox.
Best regards,
Tobias
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=SknU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: