On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 03:50:39AM +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > I uploaded g-wrap 1.9.6-2, and it got built on all architectures > (except on ia64, due to a Guile bug, but it has never built on ia64 > anyway). I'd like this version to go into Sarge, which currently has > 1.9.5-2. Note that even sid has a newer upstream version, there is no > real difference between 1.9.5-2 and 1.9.6-2 source-wise, since 1.9.5-2 > already has patches that include nearly all changes up to 1.9.6. Here > is the changelog for reference:
I don't see anything in this changelog that warrants an exception under the stated policy. > g-wrap (1.9.6-2) unstable; urgency=high > * debian/control: libgwrap-runtime0-dev replaces libgwrapguile1 (<< > 1.3.4-13). This is needed for safe upgrades, since libgwrapguile1 used > to contain g-wrap-config. This would be an RC bugfix if it applied to sarge, but it doesn't, because g-wrap-config was first moved in 1.9.6-1. > -- Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 17 May 2005 21:25:50 +0200 > g-wrap (1.9.6-1) unstable; urgency=high > > * New upstream version. This nevertheless means no real changes against > 1.9.5-2, since we already had all of the upstream fixes applied. > * Ship g-wrap-config in libgwrap-runtime0-dev and make it conflict with > libgwrapguile-dev. > * Wrote manpage for g-wrap-config. > * Fixed wrong conflict of g-wrap with non-existing gwrapguile-dev, > should be with libgwrapguile-dev, hence increased urgency. This last change would seem to be RC as well, but I don't find any files that conflict between the sarge versions of libgwrapguile-dev and g-wrap, or between the woody version of libgwrapguile-dev and the sarge version of g-wrap. Can you explain what this conflict is for? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
