Tom wrote: > 2.5.1, as is generally acclaimed, meant quite some progress compared > to 2.2. As I noticed at archive.daniel-baumann.ch, you have already > packaged 2.5.1. Could you enlighten me (or rather, the wmii list, cf. > the Cc:) about possible circumstances that prevent 2.5.1 from entering > Debian? It's almost time to start thinking about 3... :)
First: Packages at archive.daniel-baumann.ch (for versions not entered Debian) are my current *test-packages*. Even if there are newer packages of wmii available on this site, this does not imply that they are already suitable for Debian or even the work is done for a update/upgrade; otherwise they were uploaded to Debian. Those packages are just there as a service for those users, who want them (I don't hide anything). These packages can change several times within a day, without changing the version/revision number, and can be completely broken. Trust me.. as soon as the package is fine, I issue the upload to Debian. Second: wmii 2.5.1 was uploaded yesterday[0]. Note: Unfortunately, there was some missunderstanding between me and my sponsor, so the current wmii in unstable is broken, because 9base is stuck at NEW[1]. In the meanwhile you can download the 9base package from [2] (this is not a test-package, it is the one uploaded to Debian and works well). Third: wmii only depends on rc-shell from 9base It is too much overhead to install 9base and all those 9base tools when only using the rc-shell. Unfortunately, wmii does not work with the original rc-shell[3], and the inclusion of just the rc-shell from 9base into wmii did not suceeded in the first trivial attempt. However, I will stay trying to get rid of the 9base depend on the long term, to keep wmii as small as possible. Btw, for those who use Debian stable, I did upload the corresponding packages to backports.org but while wmii is currently bloked in unstable, the respective packages for Sarge are available at [4] and [5]. These are no test-packages too, they are the one which I do upload unchanged to backports.org once 9base did enter unstable. > I am not that knowledgeable with the Debian packaging process myself > (servers, and queues, and maintainers, and all), and couldn't find a > bug report, so I figured mailing you directly about it would be my > best shot. That's just fine. Additionally, I'm subscribed to the wmii list now. Regards, Daniel [0] http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/wmii/news/1.html [1] http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html [2] http://archive.daniel-baumann.ch/debian/packages/9base/1-1/ [3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/rc [4] http://archive.daniel-baumann.ch/debian/packages/9base/1-0bpo1/ [5] http://archive.daniel-baumann.ch/debian/packages/wmii/2.5.1-0bpo1/ -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
