On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 11:43 +0000, peter green wrote: > >> Looks like if I build for unstable, I'll pick up a Depends on > >> libneon27-gnutls (>= 0.29.5) which isn't in testing. Should I target > >> TPU instead? > > > >Unfortunately t-p-u isn't an option in this case, as the package has the > >same version in testing and unstable (dak requires that t-p-u uploads > >satisfy testing < t-p-u < unstable). > > Would a sensible approach be to upload the package to unstable? then if > dependencies turn out to be a problem make another upload as appropriate.
Hopefully neon is well on the way to being sorted out so personally I'd prefer to wait for the moment. > That way the changes get tested in unstable sooner rather than later and > if a TPU upload is needed it becomes possible. If we can get neon sorted quickly, then making two essentially identical uploads would be redundant. t-p-u is also somewhat complicated in this case by the fact that the most recent upload FTBFS on hurd-i386 which means there's no way right now to generate a t-p-u version number which would satisfy dak's versionning constraints as the 1.6.12dfsg-1 source is still in unstable (and removing subversion/hurd-i386 from unstable doesn't really look like a viable option). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
