Julien Cristau wrote: > These packages haven't been uploaded in 2 or 3 years before last week, I > don't think when we're frozen is the right time to fix that. > > Cheers, > Julien
Hi Julien, The thing is, I've been made DD only last June, and there was so many packages that was pending for upload without finding a sponsor to fix issues on them, which is the reason why I couldn't really work the way I wanted on my packages (there was no DM flag, and I was not DM either). So, I feel sorry that libdbi couldn't be updated earlier, but really this wasn't my fault here. :( Now, my understanding is that there's many packages that would need a rebuild (bin NMU) if libdbi was migrated to Squeeze due to ABI changes, which is the issue, right? If that is the case, then I would perfectly understand that we should *NOT* unblock. I've done the following command: apt-rdepends --follow=Depends,PreDepends,Suggests,Recommends -r --dotty libdbd-freetds libdbd-mysql libdbd-pgsql libdbd-sqlite libdbd-sqlite3 libdbi0 | dot -Tpng >libdbi_rdepends.png which gave me the following results for reverse depends: - icinga-idoutils - interchange-cat-standard - libapache2-mod-log-sql-dbi - libgsmsd7 - liblua5.1-rrd0 - librrd4 - python-gammu - python-gammu-dbg - rrdcached - rrdtool - syslog-ng I understand that this might be too much work for a result that might not be worth, considering that there wasn't any bug report sent against the libdb* packages during so much time. As a consequence, if the release team doesn't want to unblock, I'll be fine with it. I'm not sure how much work is involved in doing BinNMU of the above (let me know...). Now, is the fact that libdb* packages are in SID an issue, or can we just leave it this way? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
