"Rebecca N. Palmer" writes: > Sorry for not notifying you earlier; given the names on the git > commits, I thought Alberto was effectively the maintainer and you his > sponsor.
Hi, I plan to be the maintainer, but I'm not a DM yet, and so I rely on the expertise of Manuel in order to make the releases. He has always guided me through the technical difficulties that arised in the past. I am also subscribed to the bug reports of the package, so you can drop me from the Cc: as long as you keep the discussion in the bug reports. > Would you like to set up a maintainer-team mailing list to avoid such > problems in future? Indeed, it already exists... but it is hosted on Alioth. > Are you still looking for help (#392266), and if so with what? > This is a past request from Loic, and it stood. I guess the philosophy is «the more, the merrier». [...] >>> Since the transition requested already mentions libopenscenegraph100, >>> but 3.2.1 is not released, I think that it's actually more risky (or >>> prone to more delays) if to tie the current transition to these future >>> ones of OSG. > The 99->100 soname bump is 3.2.0rc->3.2.0 not 3.2.0->3.2.1 and appears > to be a standard OSG release procedure (possibly intended as a "don't > use pre-releases in production" marker) rather than a real change > (https://github.com/openscenegraph/osg/commits/OpenSceneGraph-3.2?page=2, > scroll down to Jul 23), so I wouldn't _expect_ further breakage, but I > agree it's always possible. (E.g. building with --as-needed, which > you do (as recommended), is currently unreliable on ia64: #718047) I wouldn't also, but it is not written on stone. That's why I'm not so keen on uploading a RC again, given the grief that caused the last one. Maybe we can just patch 3.2.0 and then wait for the 3.2.1, or keep waiting for 3.2.1, since it should be realeased soon. Regards, Alberto -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
