On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 07:19:47PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Right, and for that reason I'm not going to spend too much time chasing my > > tail on this right now given that a lot can change between now and > > openssl/GNOME1 being ready. > BTW, tied into the transition of Gnome1 and png is libofx. > Thinking that the KDE transition was tied to this, and thinking that > it would be a while before that was ready, I uploaded a new libofx to > fix a few outstanding problems earlier this week. I had been planning > to do this a long time ago, but it was stalled waiting for the > availability of a proper libcurl3-gnutls-dev library. As it happens, > this upload is currently waiting in the NEW queue. > Well, that's when I thought that the package wouldn't be moving into > testing any time soon. But recent conversation suggests that this > might not be so... Indeed, the GNOME1 update should / needs to happen fairly soon. But there seems to be a *huge* pile-up of libraries preventing that from happening today. I didn't realize how big it was until I looked at gnucash's status just now. gnucash needs the new libguppi-dev to be built in order to build on arm, ia64, m68k, and sparc. guppi needs the new libgal-dev in order to build. gal0.x needs the new gnomeprint in order to build. gnomeprint isn't uploaded yet. there's a parallel pile with gnome-print -> bonobo -> libglade, which lots of apps depend on before they can be rebuilt. I'm afraid this has made for a very un-pretty transition. On the bright side, this is better than it would have been if gdk-imlib1 *hadn't* been reintroduced as a wrapper package... :) Anyway, adding a libofx rebuild to this right now is something we could do without, yes. > Based on the list traffic the last few days, especially the > possibility that the gnome1 and png stuff might be forced into > testing, I've asked the ftpmasters not to act on the upload for the > moment, since it might needlessly delay entry into testing of the > relevant bits. I've reconfirmed this with Joerg Jaspert on IRC, so hopefully we'll get the reprieve we need. > However, note that one of the bugs (which was not reported in the BTS) > that the upload fixes is a license violation (it's a GPLd program, and > the existing version is linking with openssl). Well, it's one license bug against a very, very large number of FTBFS-in-testing bugs, so the scales kinda tip in favor of deferring libofx for now... > I wanted to make you aware of the situation (hence this note), in part > in case ftpmasters ask you about it. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
