Jay Berkenbilt writes:
>
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > new uploads of the icu source are rejected, proposing to rename the
> > icu-doc package built from the icu source.
>
> To clarify my previous response, once icu gets uploaded with a current
> version, icu28 should be removed. Therefore, either icu28's doc
> package should be renamed or both should, but I would disagree with
> the solution of renaming icu-doc from icu and keeping the one from
> icu28. There's most likely no good reason to have multiple icu
> versions in debian. icu28 was required by mono, which was the only
> reason that it was packaged. (ivo is current icu maintainer and
> previous xerces maintainer; xerces depends upon icu. blade is current
> icu28 and mono maintainer. As new xerces maintainer, I would offer to
> take over icu maintenance as well.) Anyway, these are just my
> suggestions. :-)
keeping the icu-doc package name in the icu source would mean to
introduce an epoch, because the version from the icu28 icu-doc package
is higher. That's not revertable, but package renaming is. So do what
you/the maintainer wants ;)
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
