On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 02:11:42AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > after rebuilding thuban in a clean sid chroot (and confirming this with > pbuilder) I can say that a simple binNMU fixes this bug.
> As we are in a permanent BSP (where 0-day NMUs are allowed (*)) and this bug > is open for more than a week, I plan to do a (sponsored) binNMU tomorrow. > If you're preparing a new upload within few _days_ anyway, please let me > know, > so I dont have to bother someone with sponsoring. (As there is no new > upstream version, no activity in the BTS or the pkg-grass-devel list (in may) > about thuban I somewhat doubt this - but of course I would be happy to be > proven wrong :-) It is not appropriate to use binNMUs to work around insufficiently versioned dependencies. What happens when python-wxgtk2.4 version 2.4.6 is uploaded just before the freeze, breaking thuban again without anyone noticing in time? This is a sourceful bug between thuban and python-wxgtk2.4 which requires a sourceful fix. If thuban isn't actually compatible with all versions of python-wxgtk2.4 (why not?), then it's wrong for this package to declare its dependency on python-wxgtk2.4. Also, FWIW, binNMUs are properly the domain of the porters, and don't fall under the policy for source NMUs. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkgfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel