Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk> writes:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:36:54 +0800
> Kan-Ru Chen <kos...@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> You sure you want to upload to unstable, right? Asking because it was
>> previously uploaded to experimental.
>
> I think so, yes. I didn't really intend to send the previous version to
> experimental and wanted to go back to unstable to get more feedback.
> However, there are some bugs which can't be solved as simply as
> installing roxterm-gtk2 instead of roxterm-gtk3. As long as these are
> "Outstanding" on the bug tracker that will stop the "testing" package
> being updated won't it? I don't want it to be difficult for anyone who
> finds version 2.x unusable to revert to 1.x.
The bug has to have severity set to critical, grave or serious. I think
the geometry issue is nearly grave (makes the package in question
unusable or mostly so). IMHO you might want to keep roxterm pointed to
roxterm-gtk2 until the bug was fixed, or enable the workaround by
default. Anyway this is your package, you decide :)
> I might also need some help with #641123. It's to do with
> ${shlibs:Depends} and being able to support a "new" feature in a library
> where possible but also be buildable without the feature to support
> older versions. Would it be better to ask on debian-devel about that
> sort of thing?
${shlibs:Depends} should be set by debhelper to the minimum version
required by this package upon version information from the library at
build time. If you are using a feature that is only available after
libvte9 1:0.28.1-2 but the dependency says 'libvte9 (>= 1:0.24.0)' then
it is a bug of libvte9 package.
--
Kanru
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwk1yyd2....@isil.kanru.info
