Hi. Just in case you had missed it, RDFLib 4.0.1-3 just landed in unstable (http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rdflib/news/20140513T104042Z.html)
Feel free to test and report breakages. Latest upstream (4.1.2) should be in experimental in the next days. Best regards, Olivier Berger <olivier.ber...@telecom-sudparis.eu> writes: > Hi. > > I'm contacting you as maintainers of reverse dependencies of > python-rdflib. Maybe some python folks (CC-ed) will be interested too if > RDF echoes somehow to their ears ;-) > > I'm basing this email on my system's testing telling me : > $ apt-rdepends -r python-rdflib > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree > Reading state information... Done > python-rdflib > Reverse Depends: buxon (0.0.5-4) > Reverse Depends: python-feedvalidator (0~svn1022-2) > Reverse Depends: python-sparqlwrapper (1.4.1-2) > Reverse Depends: swaml (0.1.1-2) > buxon > python-feedvalidator > python-sparqlwrapper > Reverse Depends: swaml (0.1.1-2) > swaml > > > I've been working on updating the Debian package of the Python RDFLib > [0] in recent weeks, improving the work initiated by Christian M. Amsüss > (see ITA #702300). I've just uploaded an updated package to experimental > (pending review in the NEW queue [2]). > > > RDFLib 2.4.2 in Debian was really old and buggy for modern RDF > applications, so I hope the situation will be much better with a much > more recent version appearing in Debian (4.0.1-1), but I expect quite > some impact on your packages which still depend on the old version > (enjoy reading [3]). > > I even think this may have a consequence on the presence of some of your > packages in Debian, which may become obsolete if they can't run with a > recent RDFLib :-/ > > Note that for python-sparqlwrapper, I've already tested a bit the > transition, as both packages are depending on each-other (and the > appearance of python3-rdflib will make python3-feedparser's transition > to testing happy ;) > > > I hope the python-rdflib / python3-rdflib packages will appear soon in > experimental, but in the meantime, they could be tested from rebuilding > from the package sources (see [1]). > > > Feel free to report and/or ask for more details. > > > Of course more help in improving RDFLib's packaging would be great, and > I'm sure Christian won't object, as the goal has been to try and do team > maintenance (even if the Git / SVN issue re. DPMT made it to appear in > collab-maint for the moment). > > > Looking forward to reading from your bugs, > > Best regards, > > Obergix > > > [0] http://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rdflib.html > [1] > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/rdflib.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/debian > [2] https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/rdflib_4.0.1-1.html > [3] https://github.com/RDFLib/rdflib/blob/4.0.1/CHANGELOG.md -- Olivier BERGER http://www-public.telecom-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8 Ingenieur Recherche - Dept INF Institut Mines-Telecom, Telecom SudParis, Evry (France) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/874n0te6ca....@inf-8660.int-evry.fr