On 29.03.2012 09:19, Norbert Preining wrote:
That would have been somewhat useful /before/ the packge was
uploaded to unstable. :-(
Hahahahaha, sure, I can also wait another two years.
fwiw, if you'd requested binNMUs while the new texlive-bin was in
experimental, we'd have been happy to schedule them for you. I'm not
sure why you think that would have taken so long.
And BTW, how often has an upgrade of poppler broken TeX without prior
warning? And recently wasn't it also zlib that did some incompatible
changes, even *without* bumping so number?
The fact that other transitions may not have been ideal in the past
doesn't mean we shouldn't try and improve things in general, surely?
I guess we'll just have to binNMU them all and hope they build and
work, then.
My guess is there will be Zero problem.
That would be great. :-)
If not, your (collective) help in ensuring any issues are resolved
speedily would be appreciated.
As much as we have received help with breaking poppler, or changed
zlib, or ...?
I don't recall seeing a request for assitance in respect to those
issues. If there was one and I missed it, I apologise for that.
Seems to be a rather one way obligation!?!?
Not at all. Generally the maintainers of a library performing a
transition are better placed than the release team to know whether any
issue that might arise from rebuilds is related to the transition,
whether it's an issue in the library or the dependent package, whether
there's a simple fix, etc.
If there's anything we can do to assist with any transition, we're
generally more than happy to help.
Antway, sure we'll try to help sort out all problems,
Thanks; that's appreciated.
but next time I would appreciate a different tone.
I think you're reading things in to my mail which aren't there, fwiw.
Hopefully the explanations above help in that respect.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
