Hi Sergei! Thanks for the reply. I completed 2.2.0 packaging from my perspective, can I kindly ask for your review:
https://salsa.debian.org/tcltk-team/nsf/compare/debian%2F2.1.0-4...debian%2Fsid >> Oh, it seems there is patching of tclConfig.sh.in in place: >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/tcltk-team/tcl8.6/blob/master/debian/patches/tclprivate.diff >> I take this as the recommended practise. > > I'd say that it's up to you to decide. I took this approach (patching *Config.sh.in) and verified that all advertised paths are valid (i.e., contain the promised headers and libs). Is this okay from your perspective? Besides: In the meantime, we were alerted that NSF 2.1.0 became effectively broken with the 8.6.9 release (and any future ones). In Jan/ Feb 2018, namespace-related fixes were backported from 8.7 into 8.6 and now aired with 8.6.9; NSF 2.2.0 is robust/ okay against these. How should we proceed here: * It is important to us that NSF 2.2.0 becomes available as soon as possible. * How can we best discontinue NSF 2.1.0 installations in Debian? Recommending 2.2.0 upgrades and/ or removing 2.1.0 when 8.6.9 is installed? Should we push out a 2.1.0-5 which contracts a strict dependency on <= 8.6.8? Pls. advise! All the best, Stefan _______________________________________________ Pkg-tcltk-devel mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-tcltk-devel
