على الأربعاء 21 كانون الأول 2016 08:01، كتب Adrian Bunk: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 11:19:02PM -0800, Afif Elghraoui wrote: >> ... >> I'd like to just be a little conservative with this. Indeed, if >> everything goes well with unanimity, we will need to file for this >> removal. I'd just rather that unanimity be assuredly packaged before >> removing this one. > > If consensuscore2 should be in stretch, you have to fix this bug in the > consensuscore2 source package pretty soon. >
Thanks for your concern. I recently reviewed upstream changelogs, and it looks like this version of consensuscore2 had some important bugs that were fixed in the new version that's included in unanimity now. Because of this and because there's no clear way to separate consensuscore2 from the unanimity code base to include in this source package, I think it's a good time to have this package removed. > A new unanimity package would be too late for stretch (it would have > to be packages, uploaded and accepted no later than this weekend). > I've been working on this behind the scenes. pbcopper, a build-dependency for unanimity, was recently accepted. I think I'm also close to having the unanimity package completed. It is either unanimity or nothing. regards Afif -- Afif Elghraoui | عفيف الغراوي http://afif.ghraoui.name