Re: hamcrest 1.2

2012-03-12 Thread Vincent Fourmond
Hello, On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Brian Thomason wrote: > I just have a general aversion to epochs as they are a permanent > solution to a temporary problem, but if the consensus is that an epoch > is preferred over two binary packages from the same source package, > I'm happy to do it.

Re: hamcrest 1.2

2012-03-12 Thread Brian Thomason
Thanks for the reply Damien, I just have a general aversion to epochs as they are a permanent solution to a temporary problem, but if the consensus is that an epoch is preferred over two binary packages from the same source package, I'm happy to do it. In fact, if no one else weighs in, I'll proc

Re: hamcrest 1.2

2012-03-12 Thread Damien Raude-Morvan
On 12/03/2012 22:04, Brian Thomason wrote: Hello all, Hi Brian, I uploaded hamcrest 1.2 some time ago in efforts to get the dependency chain of Eucalyptus 3.1 in place which we plan to upload to Debian soon. I was unaware that junit4 still fails to build against anything greater than 1.1 -