On 05/10/2011 01:45 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 05:03:29PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> Mike, i think your implication here is that these packages won't fare >> well with xulrunner-dev or libmozjs-dev > 1.9.1; is that right? Has >> anyone tried rebuilding them against the experimental dev packages? > > I did. Most don't.
hm. I just tried building mongodb (picked randomly off the list) and it
did indeed FTBFS against the xulrunner-dev and libmozjs-dev packages
currently in experimental.
What do you think we should do about this? I agree with mourad that it
would be good to see iceweasel 4 in unstable sooner rather than later;
it works well (thanks!), and it doesn't seem too good to linger long on
versions that are farther removed from upstream attention on something
as critical as a popular web browser. :/
>>> firegpg
>>
>> This one at least has been orphaned (by me) and can be removed from the
>> archive if it's holding up iceweasel 4. Shall i request this?
>
> It's not likely to be the most problematic.
I'd be happy to request removal nonetheless, if only to set an example
for moving forward with the other packages. I've filed #626278 to
request removal of firegpg from the archive.
Now what should we do about the other packages to make this transition
happen? Is there a plan? Should we be filing warning bugs against
them? Let them just FTBFS for a bit?
Regards,
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
