* Christian T. Steigies <cts@debian.org> [2014-01-04 00:10]:
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:08:02PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:Well, almost. The upstream tarball for version 2.1.4 contains a debian directory and I started from there.Yes, please got for it. I still have a year old message in my inbox asking for xmds2. I guess the debian files you used are the same as this:https://svn.code.sf.net/p/xmds/code/trunk/xpdeint/
Yes, they are the same as in the 2.1.4 upstream tarball.
Before I file a ITP for xmds2, I would like to know what the Debian Science team thinks about this. As regards the package currently in Git, there are still some things to be polished, but they are mostly related to upstream issues.I don't use xmds, but as I understand it xmds2 fully replaces xmds. So why do you need an ITP, just let it replace the outdated xmds package? Otherwise xmds should be removed from the archive as soon as xmds2 is available.
Well, the syntax in the *.xmds changed from version 1 to 2, so that xmds2 is not really a replacement for xmds. The upstream authors even renamed the programs to xmds2 and xsil2graphics2, in order to make xmds2 co-exist with xmds. There may still have users that rely on xmds version 1 syntax, so I think both packages should be kept, at least until xmds is proven to be really obsolete.
Rafael