Hi Ron, On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Ron <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > Ah, I just looked at the new package contents, and I see what you've done. > That makes sense. I guess my question then is does anything break with > your new plan if we stick with the libsnack2 dep for just a bit longer? > > The reason for that, is right now the package is just a simple rebuild away > from being able to be backported to squeeze or wheezy if anyone wants the > newer version there or if we get some urgent fix that needs it to be updated. > But with this change that would need a separate source package. > > I could depend on tcl-snack | libsnack2, but it's not clear to me how that > would really be different to what we have now. Am I missing something that > would make leaving the libsnack2 dep as is until squeeze and wheezy are no > longer supported be a problem for your plans with tcl-snack?
The reason why I've open this bug is that tcl-snack cannot go to testing because wavesurfer breaks (at least it's the reason ftpmasters gave me). So, I'd really appreciate if you make it depend on tcl-snack | libsnack2. This would help backporting indeed. Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
