Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 2023-01-13 15:15:10 +0200, Yavor Doganov wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > X-Debbugs-Cc: pkg-gnustep-maintain...@lists.alioth.debian.org > Control: affects -1 + src:gnustep-base src:gnustep-gui > > Dear Release team, > > We would like your permission to carry out a GNUstep transition (two > libraries simultaneously with one round of binNMUs): > > libgnustep-base1.28 -> 1.29 > libgnustep-gui0.29 -> 0.30 > > I realise we are already late and in all likelihood we've missed the > last bookworm train, which is rather unpleasant for us and GNUstep > users but entirely our fault.
I am not quite sure what you mean with unpleasant. What would be unpleasant for GNUstep users? Cheers > In case it's not possible to do it now > (after tiff/poppler) then please have us in mind for the early stages > of the trixie development cycle. > > gnustep-base/1.29.0-1 is available in experimental, not yet built on > mipsen, ppc64el and s390x. But note that 1.28.1-2 was built in > unstable on all release architectures; 1.29.0 is essentially the same > except the version bump (the damage done was corrected; see #1028189). > > gnustep-gui/0.30.0-1 is also available in experimental, not yet built > on ppc64el and s390x but I do not expect any problems there. > > While build-testing all rdeps on amd64, the following problems were > observed: > > agenda.app #1028185 gnustep-gui bug, will be fixed with next upload > gnustep-dl2 #1028577 fixed locally; needs a sourceful upload > pantomime #1028578 likewise > sope #1028579 patch sent to the BTS; needs a sourceful upload > > In addition, gnustep-back will require a sourceful upload (that is > always the case). > > The automatic ben trackers at release.d.o look fine. > -- Sebastian Ramacher
