Hi Stefan, On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 6:27 PM Stefan Sobernig <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
Will do in a few days. Sorry, I've missed this email. Thank you for pinging me on IRC. > > >> 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? I'll look into this. Probably, adding "Breaks: nsf (<< 2.2.0)" to tcl8.6 8.6.9 will do the trick. Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan _______________________________________________ Pkg-tcltk-devel mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-tcltk-devel
