Bug#687477: unblock: poco/1.3.6p1-4
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 08:42:34AM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >It lists libpoco-dev as Build-Depends and #680798 is exactly about
> >lack of the required Build-Depends.
> Indeed. As above however, sitplus isn't in testing, so doesn't
> really satisfy the
> criterion of "packages (build-)depending from it remaining in
> testing" :-)
Yes, that is correct and my fault, admittedly.
> (fwiw the version graph on #680798 indicates that it only affects
Yes. Sometimes I seem to wear some filtering glases who show a
So if you would not consider an unblock also sitplus to bring it back
(whatever might have been te reason to remove it from testing) anyway
you might feel free to close this bug. In case you would solve the bug
by unblocking poco this would be a sign for me that you are positive
about accepting sitplus (which would be great) and I would go on for
filing an according bug.
Whatever your decision might be - thanks for your work on the release
PS: May I in this context ask how you think about #685357 to unblock
beast-mcmc. Some action (either unblocking or closing) would
be helpful to give us some sign how to continue with the packaging
of new upstream (if you accept beast-mcmc we need to continue in
experimental otherwise unstable).