Hi Shlomi, Shlomi Fish wrote: > 2. The newest release of wml is 2.28.0 (see > https://github.com/thewml/website-meta-language/releases )
I know. > while Debian sid is stuck at 2.12.x (see > https://packages.debian.org/sid/wml ). Yes, as I didn't get any newer releases (up to 2.24) to build properly anymore. You can see my tries here: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/wml/-/tree/2.20.4-pkg-incomplete (ignore the version in the branch name, I didn't expect this to last several upstream releases). IIRC I had test suite failures. Need to check 2.28 again. (And yes, I know, I haven't filed an upstream bug report yet — still haven't figured out what exactly is the cause for the failures.) > I'd rather not support such an old release, It's not about Debian Unstable, it's about the WML version in current Debian Unstable (which only happens to be the same upstream version as in Debian Unstable for the reasons mentioned above) and Debian (well, I) will support this until the EoL of Debian 10 Buster. > so if the new version still exhibits some > regressions, please send a failing testcase to > https://github.com/thewml/website-meta-language/tree/master/src/wml_test and > I'll try to fix it. Will do — as soon I get it building again. > Converting some of my sites away from wml has shortened their build times > considerably. But are they as flexible as before while still being statically compiled? I doubt. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
