On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:12:35PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:22:19PM +0100, Wolfgang Baer wrote: > >>fop is currently not in testing although a valid candidate. > >>A "solution" to the problem would be to upgrade batik to 1.5.1 > >>and also to upload a new fop package with an embedded batik > >>library in the current version (with the affected Squiggle > >>class files removed from the library).
> >fop is not really a valid candidate, although it appears to be in > >grep-excuses. Both libfop-java and libfop-java-doc are uninstallable on > >their own right in unstable, because libfop-java depends on fop and fop > >conflicts with libfop-java. You can safely ignore this package for the > >time > >being... > There was a small discussion on debian-java the last minutes. I will > prepare a patched fop release which should compile against batik 1.5.1 > Should therefore the libfop-java and libfop-java-doc binary packages > removed in the new package ? I think they are transitional packages > not needed anymore as fop is not in testing at all. Am I right ? I don't think there's any reason for transitional packages for a package that's only in unstable. It's the maintainer's call whether to have a transitional package, but this is *not* the way to do it: uninstallable packages are not allowed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
