On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 09:40:04AM -0700, David D.W. Downey wrote: > Just wondering why libpam-pgsql was removed from the woody lineup.
It has not. Check madison's output on pandora. > As of libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3, libpam-pgsql has been built against > libpgsql2, not libpgsql2.1. > > Also, CJ Watson erroneously filed a bug against that version simply > because it depended on libpgsql. He erroneously assumed that that > meant it must be dependant on libpgsql2.1 No, when I filed those bugs I did check the version of libpgsql2.1 involved and I probably hadn't yet seen your new version (I checked the archive, although not incoming). (Actually, I don't remember filing any bug against libpam-pgsql. But if you say so I suppose it must be true, I go through quite a lot of bugs.) > As the following output shows, 0.5.2-3 depends on 2.7.2. Since > libpam-pgsql-0.5.2-3 was a fix for the libpgsql2.1 problem, why has this > not been pushed into woody for the current release? There are no RC bugs > against it and there is only a single "Important" bug filed against > it. (#138602: libpam-pgsql: error in manual) See the thread about postgresql. None of the new versions of libpgsql-dependent packages can go into woody until all (or almost all) of them are fixed. Check update_output.txt. It has much more information about this kind of thing than update_excuses.html. > Could someone please explain to me why 0.5.2-3 will not be available for > the woody release since it was a fix for the 0.5.2-2 version which was > yanked from woody I don't know what you're reading, but it's not the same thing as me ... -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
