-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Actually, Colin has had a look at the package, and barring some finer > points, he said the package seems all right, except that we agreed > that we needed comments from someone (possibly Camm) before going > ahead with the upload. > Should anyone want to consider uploading it to experimental, please do > note the reason why it was rejected the last time; it was because the > blas3-paper.ps didn't have the source (it is a generated PostScript > file). Please REMOVE it before uploading it. Also, the version should > be 1.2-0.2, I guess. I'm planning on taking another look at this today and uploading to Experimental unless I find something to prevent it. Camm, any comments? > I was also of this view till some time back, though, of late, I have > started thinking that it is the package build system's responsibility > to build with minimal stuff even if `carrots' of extraneous > Build-Dependencies hang out around them. Of course, I would also be > very happy with the old system, but anyway... :-) In my view the best place to define an order for satisfying dependencies is in the "Depends:" statement. I think it would be best if the dpkg change was reverted ASAP and then we can have a discussion about the best way to move forward without having a lot of packages which FTBFS. Especially as this brokenness is currently impacting about 200 packages (via build dependencies on things like cernlib and refblas3) for armel. regards, Colin - -- Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1903 236872 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0x1B3045CE Try to learn from other people's mistakes, you haven't time to make them all yourself! - Anon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHixQZj2OPlhswRc4RAvgQAJ4zEPCUVAKWa5W6cRauJ2dcbRZOdQCgiN30 GzA/pZB8P5Tg0jOav50I/Q0= =YdXE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
