Hello! On 10/16/2013 07:54 AM, shirish शिरीष wrote: >> On Sun, 2013-10-13 at 03:40 +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> For some reason libsfml2 is still in new. It seems there was a new >>> version uploaded to the archive. >>> >>> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/libsfml_2.1+dfsg-2.html
That's because the package contains new binary components, i.e. the source package creates additional binary packages as compared to the version of libsfml currently in Debian. >>> from dfsg-1 to dfsg-2. >>> >>> Also the uploaded date has changed to 6th Oct 2013. >> >> Yes I made some improvements to the package and it was re-uploaded. You >> can see all the changes in the git repo here: >> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/libsfml.git > > Saw your sponsor make a few changelog fixes on the 7th as well > > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-games/libsfml.git I made these changes and James committed them, correct. I'm a bit of an OCD-type when it comes to changelogs :). >>> Also see/saw the reason why he has set the binaries to be uploaded to >>> experimental as well. >>> >>> From http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=706001#15 >>> >>> "I've done some work on packaging SFML 2.1 (since i needed it done >>> anyway). I've tried to follow the debian policies as much as possible so >>> maybe this could be included in debian. I've only set the distribution >>> to experimental since this would probably break the libcsfml and >>> python-sfml packages which still use SFML 1.6. " >>> >>> I do hope that both libsfml 1.6 and libsfml2 can exist on one machine. >> >> The library packages (eg libsfml-audio1.6 and libsfml-audio2) can >> coexist, although the 1.6 packages will eventually disappear from the >> archive. >> However the -dev package containing the headers will not be able to >> coexist since the headers from 1.6 and 2.1 have the same filenames. This >> is why an upload to unstable will break libcsfml and python-sfml if they >> get rebuilt. Correct. -dev-packages usually have the same name for any package version while the actual library packages have the API version or SO version appended as a single digit to the name of the library package. > I have also explicitly used your sponsorer's email id so he can also > share with us when he would be committing libsfml2 to the archive (or > is the ball in ftp-master's hands now ? ) When a package is in NEW, it's solely in the hands of the FTP masters. There is nothing that you can do, neither as a sponsor nor as a sponsoree. You have to wait for the package to be accepted or rejected, then take the appropriate actions. Cheers, Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org