OK seems I need to up all revision of the involved packages anyway -
if people have stable and unstable active, we'd otherwise be in the
quirky situation of having two equally reved sets of files with
different dependencies, which would be bad.
I will only change the revision by appending a ("Revision: 1" ->
"Revision: 1a") *without* changing the file names. Yes, this is a
(small) breach of the policy and breaks validation for these
packages. However it is by far the quickeest and easiest way to
achieve this (the alternative would be to rename ~120 files in cvs,
which requires 120 file renames, 120 cvs rm, 120 cvs add - takes very
long for a single person (me) to do and is error prone.
Of course that is only a quick&dirty solution. It would be nice if
all maintainers of affected packages could put out real new revision
soon (and ideally at the same time revise if you really need to
depend on "openssl" or if "openssl097-shlibs" is mayb sufficient).
Oh and don't forget: openssl 0.9.7 is not yet in stable. So if you
want to move something in crypto to stable, you have to wait for
openssl-0.9.7 to be moved first... which in turn requires that all
openssl dependant packages in stable have to updated at that moment.
So I suggest we all test openssl 0.9.7 a lot in the next week(s) so
that we can move over all the stuff soon to stable.
Cheers,
Max
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
