On Wed, June 30, 2010 14:12, Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 08:52:09PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 15:05 +0200, Michael Banck wrote: >> > At this point, opensync is not ready for release. [...] >> opensync is involved in the transition to using python2.6 by default >> (via python-opensync, which depends on "python << 2.6" in testing) so we >> will either need to be able to migrate the new opensync packages, or >> remove them from testing; given this bug and the number of FTBFS bugs >> against packages in the dependency chain, the latter looks more likely. > > Hrm, it seems opensync and the rest got removed from testing already?
Yeah. We had an opportunity to get the python transition (mostly) finished somewhat earlier than we expected, so we took it; unfortunately opensync was a casualty of that. > I was going to propose to drop all non-python plugins and fix > opensync-0.22 in testing to work with python2.6 and thus keeping barry > and synce-sync-engine on board, as people seem to be successfully using > those. But I am not sure this would be the best, either. I wouldn't be averse to helping them back in to testing minus the opensync plugins, if they're otherwise useful. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
