Ok, I have no problems with it. Can you make sure that current cvs head is OK? If it is so then I'll package new tarball in a day or so.
Aleksey John Belmonte wrote on 1/20/2004, 3:31 PM: > [I posted this yesterday from the wrong email address, so here it is > again. The late breaking news is that gnutls 1.x made it into Debian. > Still, I'm interested in the latest xmlsec fixes for nss, because I plan > to enable that engine finally.] > > Sorry Aleksey, but I have to ask about when the next release is again. > > There is pressure these days for xmlsec 1.2.x since it is required by > pyxmlsec (see http://bugs.debian.org/228531). Also, as I mentioned > before, Debian may be approaching a freeze for the next release, so I'd > like to get a recent version of xmlsec in before that happens. > > Part of this is my fault, because on the last few occasions I should > have verified that the CVS head was acceptable before asking you to make > a release. (In this case I know it's OK because you've only made > changes for my reported problems :-) .) > > The other cause is that I'm being somewhat pedantic about not wanting to > package a patched xmlsec. If my package says "version 1.2.3", I want it > to really mean 1.2.3 as released by upstream. Also in the case of a > change to configure.in, it propagates to many other files that must be > patched, because the Debian build does not run autoconf. > > Regards, > -John > > > -- > http:// if ile.org/ > _______________________________________________ > xmlsec mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec _______________________________________________ xmlsec mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec
