[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#736769: pu: package tuxguitar/1.2-13



Control: tags -1 + wheezy confirmed

On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 09:08 -0800, tony mancill wrote:
> The version of tuxguitar in wheezy still depends on xulrunner-10.0,
> whereas wheezy now has iceweasel 17 and will shortly (at least via
> -security) have 24.

Heh, that sounds familiar. :-)

> The proposed update adjusts the dependencies to allow
> xulrunner-24.0 | xulrunner-17.0 | xulrunner-10.0.
> 
> Please see #736365 [0] for the debdiff and information about
> testing on wheezy.
[...]
> [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736365#15

I'm attaching a copy of the debdiff to this bug, for the record.

With the obvious change to the distribution in the changelog header,
please go ahead; thanks.

Regards,

Adam
diff -Nru tuxguitar-1.2/debian/changelog tuxguitar-1.2/debian/changelog
--- tuxguitar-1.2/debian/changelog	2012-02-25 11:41:46.000000000 -0800
+++ tuxguitar-1.2/debian/changelog	2014-01-22 13:56:47.000000000 -0800
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+tuxguitar (1.2-13+deb7u1) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
+
+  * Team upload.
+  * debian/control: update list of supported xulrunner versions in
+    tuxguitar's Depends. (Closes: #736365)
+
+ -- gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org>  Wed, 22 Jan 2014 22:23:05 +0100
+
 tuxguitar (1.2-13) unstable; urgency=low
 
   [ Philippe Coval ]
diff -Nru tuxguitar-1.2/debian/control tuxguitar-1.2/debian/control
--- tuxguitar-1.2/debian/control	2012-02-25 11:41:46.000000000 -0800
+++ tuxguitar-1.2/debian/control	2014-01-22 13:56:47.000000000 -0800
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
  libswt-gtk-3-java,
  libswt-cairo-gtk-3-jni,
  libswt-webkit-gtk-3-jni,
- xulrunner-10.0 | xulrunner-9.0 | xulrunner-8.0 | xulrunner-7.0 | xulrunner-6.0 | xulrunner-5.0 | xulrunner-1.9.1,
+ xulrunner-24.0 | xulrunner-17.0 | xulrunner-10.0 | xulrunner-1.9.1,
  ${misc:Depends}
 Recommends: tuxguitar-alsa (= ${source:Version}), tuxguitar-oss (= ${source:Version})
 Suggests: tuxguitar-jsa (= ${source:Version}), lilypond

Reply to: