On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:55:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:39:55PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 10:29:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Yes, but it is better than having our packages hold back by libvorbis > > > and the 105 or so packages that will be breaken by its inclusion in > > > testing, many of them have big RC bugs and such, and will not be > > > includable in testing for a long time. > > > > Could you please back your figures up with hard data? I was looking for > > libvorbis stuff to NMU and had a time finding some. clanlib-vorbis still > > needs porting though. I doubt we are talking about '105' packages > > though. > > Taken from yesterdays update_output.txt entry at : > http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_output.txt > > skipped: libvorbis (449+583) > got: 116+0: a-116 > * alpha: adonthell, alsaplayer, alsaplayer-alsa, [...]
I was not talking about the packages that are not transitioned into testing because of that. I was asking for a list of packages that *still* need recompile/porting/manual intervention. There's nothing we can do about lagging autobuilders at the moment. Anyway, I think I've seen such list edited by you in another mail. > > And in the end, those packages are *already* included in testing, no? > > Just a/some version(s) behind. > > Well, i don't really care about those packages, it is just that this > will hold up any packages which depend on libvorbis (post 0a). I could > try rebuilding those packages with the testing libvorbis, but i doubt > out autobuilders will be happy if i ask them to autobuild on unstable + > the testing libvorbis. Well, they will ignore you. Michael
