On 08/10/2015 10:52 AM, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > > > On 10/08/2015 09:48, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 08/10/2015 10:42 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: >>> On 10-08-15 08:45, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > >>> I'm not sure if it's wise to start the netcdf transition already, even >>> though I would prefer to transition to the new netcdf packages instead >>> of doing a v5 rename. A number of reverse dependencies cannot be built >>> in unstable because the libdap transition (#791114) hasn't started >>> yet, so libstdc++6 still breaks the current libdap version in unstable >>> on which gdal among others (build) depends, and so most GIS package >>> cannot be built because they (build) depend on gdal. This includes >>> gmt, ncl & vtk6 that are part of the netcdf transition. > >> is there a reason to not start the libdap transition? it's already in > experimental. > > I believe not: I think we should go with libdap now. Its awating an OK > from the RM team; if there is a problem its with gdal. I've tested a > libdap build with grads.
you don't need one. It's already granted in their email to debian-devel-announce. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
