-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Sun, 2023-10-15 at 15:39 +0000, Gaël Bonithon wrote: > Hi Yves-Alexis, > Hi Gael,
> It's definitely not something I was expecting, but I have to admit I'm a > little embarrassed to revert this commit. As said on IRC, I saw that Brian > had also used xdt 4.19 for xfce4-notifyd 0.9.x without anyone complaining, > so I thought it was fine (after hesitating to use xdt 4.19 right away, it's > true). We have the same issue for xfce4-notifyd but then I assumed 0.9 was the development branch leading to a 0.10 release for Xfce 4.20. So we pushed it to experimental without too much fuss. For xfce4-terminal it looks (to me) like a stable point release so I was surprised. > > Note that this is only a build dependency, which is only bumped to be able > to use XDT_CHECK_OPTIONAL_FEATURE(). This doesn't pose a problem on Arch > Linux, for example, which doesn't package any of the development versions of > Xfce. Even though I know Arch isn't Debian :) I have no idea how packaging works on Arch, and specifically Xfce. But in Debian we basically run the autoreconf thing so we need xfce4-dev-tools at build time. And we can't build-dep on an experimental package in unstable (or testing), so that's why xfce4-terminal would have to go to experimental as well. > > Would it be possible to apply a minimal patch (which I can provide) on your > side to bring xdt down to a stable version? Well, if you have it and it's sensible, yes sure. Regards, - -- Yves-Alexis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAmUsNSAACgkQ3rYcyPpX RFuXcAgA5XvQO1161PDYxbhO9EaTz1zeljUXDewNAFUtWudpo6bKR/NpdSN1Bnay 5rh4lZSzjVWizcQcSGjFNvkltdz21HBljbnpy91DJvfbZgTDaZcW+yv2kCsEF7lL UnQzMNRotpdxHPoyEgfMwpdWlSmBhNyVhfUh+MEJi5S+hGIwsWu+/daCKsyiH7yS HR4VCAIf7asJ1L0poeiN2s3Bk83txaJehsftELHLO91XxsVQa5x/Zr3j2I0B8xBJ RSwSG20SfAmw60+JREspMbe7C8M9mCqcCAixm4JbFE90JzI86XBy/oDZvVPMLWt6 bQkCbSnhFTOBtkxtCK/hblye6BsVZw== =Zsvh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
