>Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hrmz, and what about xerces21, currently still in unstable and testing? > > There are two packages (gdal and qgis) that depend upon xerces21. > Bugs have been filed against both (301710/301650 and 301709), and both > maintainers have already responded. . . .
I haven't seen any recent activity on this from the maintainers (though the qgis maintainer can't do anything until the gdal maintainer does). My inclination is to execute the following plan: * File a removal request for xerces21 noting that I am not the maintainer of xerces21 but am the maintainer of the newer versions; X-Debbugs-CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (maintainer of xerces21) * Ivo (xerces21 maintainer) gets the removal request, and replies to it giving his blessing. (Alternatively, Ivo, who is copied on this message, can beat me to the punch and file the removal request for xerces21, cc'ing me so I know, or can speak up and say he that he objects to removal of xerces21 for some reason.) * Once this happens, we upgrade the three above mentioned bugs to RC (since they will FTBFS), and state intention to NMU if no response in a given period of time. I'm copying maintainers for gdal and qgis, so they can respond too before I do this, maybe making the whole plan irrelevant. Is this too aggressive? The bugs requesting upgrade of the other packages are two weeks old now, so it seems like this may be a reasonable approach at this time if we want to remove xerces21 but not gdal and qgis. -- Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
