Hi Daniel, On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:54:21PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > I would like to update bluefish and docbook-xsl with it's latest > releases.
> bluefish: version in Debian is 1.0.6, but 1.0.7 was released soon after > we released 1.0.6 to fix a few bugs. It's really just a bug-fix release: > [upstream NEWS file] > - Updated translations: French, Japanese. > - Adds datarootdir to all Makefile.in to avoid warnings with autoconf 2.60 > - Fixes application/bluefish-project MIME type icon name > - Fixes Tcl highlighting > - Fixes a bug when trying to save a file with a new install and a file has > never been opened or a project is not open. Closes bug #360401. > - Fix a bug where Bluefish would crash when deleting multiple bookmarks. > - Fix a bookmark memory leak > - README: more complete README > bluefish itself does not have any important reverse dependency. So any > problem with this update? Um, gnome-devel is an important reverse-dependency. We can't just drop the meta-gnome2 package from etch if bluefish ends up broken, after all. By the upstream description, this doesn't sound too bad, but I'm still somewhat wary because this isn't a package we can just kick out if it's broken. As long as you're agreeing to stay on top of any bugs that do appear and get them fixed in a timely manner, I'm ok with this. > docbook-xsl: version in Debian is 1.71.0 and the latest available > upstream version is 1.71.1 - also a bug-fix release fixing a bug > reported to the Debian BTS and several bugs reported only upstream. But > the latter one misses some files in the source tarball and it does not > contain the fix for Debian bug > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=310895. So I was > talking with Michael Smith, one of the upstream authors and release > managers for docbook-xsl and he told me, that he could maybe do a new > release after November 20th. This release would be 1.72.0, because some > changes were made to the behaviour of docbook-xsl. But IMO and AFAIK it > will not break any package/application depending on docbook-xsl. I would > really like to include the latest available docbook-xsl into Etch and > only include important bug-fixes from upstream CVS, not an older > docbook-xsl with massive bug-fixes from upstream CVS - this is always a > pain, because upstream is very active and some bug-fixes need a rewrite > of parts of the stylesheets. So what is your opinion about this? Am I > allowed to include the latest available release into Etch? No. An "IMO" is not enough when we're talking about introducing incompatibilities in a package as deep in the dependency chain as this one is. We've already been dealing with a dozen or so build failures over the past few weeks caused by regressions in various TeX-related packages, we don't need to add to this with behavior changes in our xsl stack. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
