Julien Cristau wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:13:47 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > >> Julien Cristau wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:27:32 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: >> > >> >> So it is IMHO safe to allow on the Debian side too. What do you think >> >> ? >> >> >> > Ignoring the upstream changes for a moment, I'm uncomfortable with the >> > packaging overhaul. >> >> What does make you so uncomfortable ? >> > A freeze is not the time to rewrite debian/rules and maintainer scripts.
I very much know this, but the rewrite was already done and tested (locally) before the freeze, by which I got surprised, thinking I had until "late august" to get this uploaded (but I'm not ranting, that's perfectly fine). Not being at the benefit of full upload rights also adds delays. >> So three solutions IMHO: >> >> i) keep foomatic-filters in "lenny-style", with Chris as maintainer >> (basically foomatic-* MIA), no update towards Squeeze; >> ii) upload foomatic-filters 4.0.5-* with the dpkg-vendor thing removed >> but with ps_accounting default enabled; >> iii) upload foomatic-filters 4.0.5-* with the dpkg-vendor thing removed >> but _without_ the ps_accounting default change; >> >> What do you think ? >> > I guess I'm fine with any of those. Okay, I'll go on with ii) and getting foomatic-filters uploaded to unstable with the dpkg-vendor thing removed. If that is needed, I'd be perfectly fine with a >10 days delay before the transition. I'll reply to this thread when the upload is done. Thanks for your time for this review ! OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
