Bug#854912: unblock: shotwell/0.25.4-0.1

2017-02-20 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
one justification offered for 1) but none for 2) I opted for option 1). Did I miss anything? I'm kindly asking that we work together to get this package of the stable version in before the release, for the reasons pointed out in #849688 and #850149. All my best, -richard. -- Richard B. Kreckel <http://in.terlu.de/~kreckel/>

Bug#854912: unblock: shotwell/0.25.4-0.1

2017-02-17 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
I've NMUed shotwell 0.25.4+really0.24.5-0.1, containing 0.24.5, the latest stable release. It's now three days old. How to proceed? -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <http://in.terlu.de/~kreckel/>

Re: Package shotwell

2017-02-14 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
On 02/13/2017 09:03 PM, Richard B. Kreckel wrote: > Good to hear again from you regarding this package, Jörg! > > On 02/13/2017 05:32 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> On 13/02/17 13:15, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> Is the

Re: Package shotwell

2017-02-13 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
gt; 1:0.24.0-1)... Given that it's a little late, I do propose to wait for 0.25.4 to be unblocked. After all, it's 7 days old and a new package would have to start again at 0. Well, unless there're good reasons to do otherwise. -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <http://in.terlu.de/~kreckel/>

Bug#854912: unblock: shotwell/0.25.4-0.1

2017-02-11 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
Subject: unblock: shotwell/0.25.4-0.1 Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock Severity: normal Please unblock package shotwell. Upstream version 0.25.1 of shotwell was packaged for testing, but that version is unsuitable for release in stretch as

library transition

2011-10-01 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
Hi! I realize this must be a FAQ, but I still need a little bit coaching on how to make a library version transition from libginac-1.5.so.0 to libginac.so.2: <http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=ginac> What can I do to make progress? -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel

Why is package cln not in testing yet?

2008-03-14 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
o have the same versions in testing and unstable and install fine. It appears to me like the source package cln_1.2.0 and the packages built from it should be hinted into testing. -richy. -- .''`. Richard B. Kreckel : :' : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `. `' &l

Who declares optional packages extra?

2006-10-01 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
t bogus or what? -richy. -- Richard B. Kreckel <http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

cln is scheduled for removal?

2005-09-06 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
cln> -- .''`. Richard B. Kreckel : :' : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `. `' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `-<http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Cyclic dependencies in octave2.1 packages?

2004-12-08 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
gt; watch over how the pieces build. Okay, welcome to the real life. What's the gcc-3.4 blockage now? Something is wrong here because in the case at hand it leads to mixing two incompatible libstdc++ libraries! Such is life? :^) -richy. -- .''`. Richard B. Kreckel : :&#

Re: Cyclic dependencies in octave2.1 packages?

2004-12-04 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
erything in. :-( I would not complain about this if we were able to clearly see such problems ahead during the ten day period. But experience has shown that we routinely fail to recognize them from the output of Björn's scripts. The reason of this, one could conject, is that the output during that ten day period is just a rather barren "...is too young". :-( Then, after the ten day have passed, people (including myself) start panicking. Regards -richy. -- .''`. Richard B. Kreckel : :' : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `. `' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `-<http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>

Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?

2004-03-17 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
m the rest of the iceberg? Fun -richy. -- .''`. Richard B. Kreckel : :' : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `. `' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `-<http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>

Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?

2004-03-08 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
testing for alpha. It's not so easy not to comment on an optimization which discards valuable information. In fact, the crucial piece of information, in this case. This is not the first time people have found the output irritating beyond hope because of missing clues. Sigh. L

Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?

2004-03-06 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
There is the new ginac/1.1.6-1! So why the deadlock? (Also, if cln goes in, then the qalculate-gtk package can follow, too, at last.) Regards -richy. -- .''`. Richard B. Kreckel : :' : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `. `' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `-<http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>

Re: Why is package X not in testing yet?

2004-03-02 Thread Richard B. Kreckel
ng: cln,ginac > FAILED > > I might be reading it wrong, though. I suggest you mail > debian-release@lists.debian.org and ask them what happened and if > there's anything you can do. Well then, that said, is there anything I can do to resolve this? Luck -richy. --