On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 05:37:19PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> and concluded that the only problem would be that some buildds might > >> have libkpathsea3's dev package already installed. > > > > Oh, sorry; the fact that the libkpathsea3 source package still includes > > libkpathsea-dev confused madison (and me) into thinking this was still the > > old libkpathsea-dev. > > The libkpathsea-dev package from the libkpathsea3 source package *is* > the old libkpathsea-dev - but I think you know that and I only don't > understand what you wanted to say.
Yeah, but that binary package is gone anyway since there can only be one binary package with a given name per arch. The current -dev package is the archive is build from tetex-bin. > > (This is an RC bug on libkpathsea3, btw, since that > > package can no longer be uploaded in its present state...) > > A RC which hopefully can be resolved soon by removing the package. Do > you think I need to file it? It never hurts to document such facts... But filing the RM bug is probably more important I guess ;) > >> > If you remove libkpathsea-dev from the libkpathsea3 package (or drop > >> > libkpathsea3 altogether from unstable), then it should be possible to > >> > binNMU > >> > these > > > >> Dropping completely would be a task for the ftpmaster, correct? > > > > Yes, upon request of the package maintainer. > > Hm, but you agree that it is not necessary to remove the libkpathsea-dev > binary package from sid (or sid and etch); we can instead wait until we > can remove the complete libkpathsea3 stuff, right? Which binary do you mean? The one that is build from libkpathsea3 (which is already gone anyway) or the current one? I hope I didn't add to the confusion :) Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
