* Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-07 15:54]: > Version 2006.07.09+dfsg1-6 of octave2.9-forge has been in unstable since 16 > days and has no bugs filed against it. Four bugs have been closed since > the current version in testing (2006.07.09+dfsg1-4) was released: #393495, > #403653, #403734, and #403864. None of these bugs were RC, but it would be > good to have a bug-free version of octave2.9-forge in etch. > > However, before asking for hinting the latest version into etch, I need a > clarification about a dependency issue, as shown in the page > http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=octave2.9-forge: > > Dependency analysis (including build-depends; i386 only): > > * octave2.9-forge depends on libpng12-0 >= 1.2.8rel but testing has > 1.2.15~beta5-1 (unstable has 1.2.15~beta5-1) > o binary package libpng12-0 is part of source package libpng > + libpng has the same version in unstable and testing > (1.2.15~beta5-1) > + info: libpng has a version in experimental (1.4.0~beta16-0) > > The only architecture in which octave2.9-forge depends on the old version > of libpng12-0 is i386. Should I rebuild the package in an up-to-date etch > chroot before asking for the hint?
* Julien Cristau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-07 16:17]: > On Sun, Jan 7, 2007 at 15:54:46 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote: > > > Dependency analysis (including build-depends; i386 only): > > > > * octave2.9-forge depends on libpng12-0 >= 1.2.8rel but testing has > > 1.2.15~beta5-1 (unstable has 1.2.15~beta5-1) > > This page doesn't seem to know about ~ in version strings, so I think > you can just ignore that bit. Thanks for the clarification. May I then ask the release managers to hint octave2.9-forge_2006.07.09+dfsg1-6 into etch? -- Rafael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
