* Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Philip Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> An idea for the change... from the perspective of the operating > >> system, it won't be really a rename, there is still going to be a > >> CSWpysvn package, only with a different content. > > > > > > you say "only", but that is what makes it WORSE! :-/ > > Not necessarily. We ship library packages with multiple libraries in > them. We potentially could ship both subversion-core and pysvn > libraries in the same package. No renaming, but merging > python-subversion libraries. It's a problem equivalent to the shared > library problem, which is solved already. > > > I have said the order and timeline of what I think is the best path to take. > > That still stands. > > Your timeline means that submitpkg won't be able to generate > changelists for $time_to_build_new_subversion_packages + one month. > I'd like to operate quicker than that. Any problems with this > approach?
Any progress on the "new subversion/trac packages" front? I have had internal requests for 1.6.6 (quite a bit of bugfixes [1] from our current/ 1.6.2) and saw that a 1.6.5 build recipe with the adjusted python bindings package name is already in GAR. Sebastian [1] http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/CHANGES _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
