* Niels Thykier <[email protected]>, 2012-02-14, 17:09:
I still have on my to-do list to post another revision of the symbols
Policy change including some changes from Charles and some changes due
to my test of symbols with C++ libraries, but at this point the
chances are good that it will miss 3.9.3 and will be in 3.9.4.
[...]
If I recall correctly you were considering to drop the
"missing-symbols-file" for C++ libraries?
Do we really need to drop it? Wouldn't it be better to extend the tag
description to explain that costs of maintaining symbols files for C++
libraries are very high and might not be justified by benefits coming
from them?
Jakub: Do you have some unmerged patches (with tests) you want in
2.5.5?
I'd love to have #658311 fixed for the next release, but it's without
tests for the moment.
The only sane way of testing it would involve build-depending on
python-numpy. Niels ACKed adding such build-dependency on IRC, but I'm
not sure if he was being serious.
[1] Admittedly I only noticed some /run, DEP-5 and some multi-arch stuff.
If DEP-5 is going to have finally a stable URI (is it? I didn't follow
its "development" lately), then we should fix at least #651392.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
