On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:34:07PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 08:03:36PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > >> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > >>> On 2009-01-28, Luk Claes <l...@debian.org> wrote: > >>>> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > >>>>> Luk Claes wrote: > >>>>>> Do you also take care of documenting this in the Release Notes? > >>>>> I'll do that in the next days. > >>>> Ok, thanks! > >>> I've filed a bug against release-notes. Do the now obsolete binary > >>> packages (like iceape-browser) need to be removed by FTP masters? > >> It's already removed by FTP masters, iceape just needs to migrate to > >> have any effect in testing (which won't happen before all reverse deps > >> are fixed). > > > > What do you mean by that? Theorically, there is nothing to do to reverse > > dependencies. Keeping iceape-dev and iceape-dev-bin ensures they can be > > built from source, but they shouldn't need rebuilding or any NMU. > > Ah, ok, the better. That just means that the issues listed in > `grep-excuses iceape` need to be solved before it migrates.
Which only contains out-of-dates for alpha, hppa, and ia64, where it appears the packages have been built already and only need signing and upload (and apparently, hppa is already uploaded). Coming out smoothly, it seems. Cheers, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
