On 2012-05-24 06:25, Onkar Shinde wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Egon Willighagen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> [...] >> >> I'm happy to look at a full error report! (Not sure I can get around >> to setting up an environment for building it myself... (I've done it >> in the past, but have to relearn the steps each time...) > > I will look into the build failure over weekend. I think one reason > might be that I forgot to clean javadocs in the clean target in > d/rules. >
Seems like a plausible reason. :) >> >> [...] >> >> Except that the python-cinfony package needs updating too, and that >> may imply having to updated rdkit and openbabel as well... (nothing >> wrong with that, of course! :) > > A quick check of packages suggests that openbabel and rdkit are recent > enough for cinfony 1.1. But it seems to have gained new > (build)dependencies. So I am not sure how easy the task will be for > packaging latest cinfony. > Given this scenario, my suggestion is to target the cdk packaging for > 'experimental' and then file a wishlist bug against cinfony for the > upgrade request (or simply test current version against new cdk). If > we are lucky then both will make into archives before freeze. Let me > know what you think. > > Cheers, > Onkar Personally I have no issues with targetting this for experimental; in fact I think it makes perfect sense to use experimental for possible API/ABI issues[1]. ~Niels [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions """ [...], you are more than welcome (and even encouraged) to use experimental. """ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
