On Wed, 2024-08-28 at 09:42 +0200, Sébastien Noel wrote: > Le 2024-08-19 19:29, Phil Wyett a écrit : > > [...] > > So, really >= 79 would maybe be the best way forward. > > Can you please explains why you think that ? > > The package requires bits that were added in g-d-p v74. > The depends field contains "game-data-packager-runtime (>= 74)" > > And you push for ">= 79", posing it as a condition for doing second > review. This doesn't make sense to me. > > br, > Sébastien > > > If you do an upload with your choice of method, then I > > shall do another review. > > > > Regards > > > > Phil > >
Hi Sebastien, Does not block me reviewing at all. Just wanted you to think on it. I would personally bump it to >= 79 both as that is the 'game-data-packager- runtime' in 'testing' and 'unstable'. This is the version you will be using, testing against and supporting with your package. Doing this dep allows you to say that using any version below this is at own risk and not supported with your package. If you wish the packag eto be reviewed as is, that is fine. Regards Phil -- "I play the game for the game’s own sake" Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans -- Buy Me A Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas Matrix: #kathenas:matrix.org Website: https://kathenas.org Instagram: https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/ Threads: https://www.threads.net/@kathenasorg --
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
