chrysn <[email protected]> writes: > as it is labelled unstable by upstream, it might not be suitable for > anything in debian but experimental (i'd like to see it there for users > to test the new features
Thanks for your work on this. I've been meaning to try 1.9, so I'll take on the task of packaging and uploading to experimental. > one big caveat i noticed when up- and downgrading is the guile cache: > after a downgrade, guile cache files linger around in the user > directory. (example error messages below). it can be worked around by > `rm -rf ~/.cache/guile`, but even if we don't officially support > downgrades it would be better if that cache was somehow validated. > probably not completely our business, maybe not even new in this > upgrade, but still an issue i noticed when updating the package. who'd > be upstream for this, guile or geda? I'd like to say guile, so suggest filing a bug there .. if the right resolution is for the geda-gaf packaging to do something to flush relevant cache entries, the guile folks will I hope will say so and help us understand how best to do that. Bdale
pgpode5DotkmZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
