severity 749861 important thanks On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:13:36PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01:30PM +1200, Olly Betts wrote: > > We're aiming to migrate the archive to using wxwidgets3.0 instead of > > wxwidgets2.8, and intend to drop wxwidgets2.8 before jessie is released. > > OK, but can you explain why it blocks an ongoing transition?
https://release.debian.org/transitions/ lists wxwidgets3.0 as such. But I've lowered the severity for now - the combination of RC severity and the autoremoval from testing of packages with RC bugs makes "serious" rather more brutal than I had intended for newly filed bugs without either a patch or newer upstream version with wx3 support. > I would assume the work-flow would be to file wishlist/normal bugs for > a migration to wxwidgets3.0 first, and then later on upgrade them to > serious if 2.8 really cannot be supported for jessie. I managed this for a lot of packages, but I'm the only currently active member of the wxwidgets maintainers team, and there's a lot of packages for one person to process. Which is also part of the reason why we can't sanely keep 2.8 for jessie - upstream have moved on to 3.x and I don't have the time to take over upstream's role for 2.8 as well as maintain 2.8 and 3.0 for Debian. > Thanks for the report. You are right that qutemol is dead upstream, so > we need somebody from Debian to port it to 3.0. I don't have any > WXWidgets experience, so patches are welcome. If there's nobody interested in qutemol who can take over upstream maintenance, perhaps removal should be considered? Cheers, Olly -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
