Hi, On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 09:26:40PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 20:49 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 20:58:07 +0200, Michael Banck wrote: > > > > > Uploading this would make it possible to potentially transition the barry > > > and > > > synce-sync-engine packages (which I believe were removed due to > > > opensync), as > > > well as the currently still at 0.22 kdepim plugin and the multisync0.90 > > > package in unstable. Other still at 0.22 plugins in unstable could be > > > transitioned as well, but they are less important. > > > > > > Further testing-proposed-updates uploads of the file and evolution2 > > > plugins should be done as well, as they are quite central. > > > > > OK, let's go ahead with this. > > opensync was uploaded and has now built everywhere; I've approved it so > it should enter testing in the next britney run. > > The -file and -evolution2 plugins are in NEW as of a few hours ago. Are > there any tpu uploads remaining?
I just checked, and all the other ones are in unstable. Except for the syncml-plugin/libsyncml, but as I said before, the current libsyncml in testing is not working with the 0.22 syncml-plugin, and reverting this is not worth the effort - also now that I believe syncevolution gets fixed up for squeeze. The question is which packages to transition from unstable, at least multisync0.90, libopensync-plugin-python are essential and libopensync-plugin-kdepim, barry and synce-sync-engine would make sense (although I do not maintain the latter two). I don't see any RC bugs on them except for the 0.22 vs. 0.39 related ones. Other plugins (like libopensync-plugin-gpe, libopensync-plugin-google-calendar etc. would be nice, but I am not sure what the release team's feeling are here. Regards, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org