Hi Steve, Am Sonntag, den 19.11.2006, 04:37 -0800 schrieb Steve Langasek: > On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 03:54:21PM +0100, Daniel Leidert wrote: > > I would like to update bluefish and docbook-xsl with it's latest > > releases. > > > bluefish: version in Debian is 1.0.6, but 1.0.7 was released soon after > > we released 1.0.6 to fix a few bugs. It's really just a bug-fix release: > > > [upstream NEWS file] > > - Updated translations: French, Japanese. > > - Adds datarootdir to all Makefile.in to avoid warnings with autoconf 2.60 > > - Fixes application/bluefish-project MIME type icon name > > - Fixes Tcl highlighting > > - Fixes a bug when trying to save a file with a new install and a file has > > never been opened or a project is not open. Closes bug #360401. > > - Fix a bug where Bluefish would crash when deleting multiple bookmarks. > > - Fix a bookmark memory leak > > - README: more complete README > > > bluefish itself does not have any important reverse dependency. So any > > problem with this update? > > Um, gnome-devel is an important reverse-dependency. We can't just drop > the meta-gnome2 package from etch if bluefish ends up broken, after all.
It's just a bug-fix release (I'm upstream as well) and we do many tests to ensure, that it will not "completely break". > By the upstream description, this doesn't sound too bad, but I'm still > somewhat wary because this isn't a package we can just kick out if it's > broken. This release only fixes a bug, that broke clean bluefish installations (see the BTS). The rest are only minor bug-fixes, no heavy or minor code-changes. So I'm pretty sure, that it will not break. > As long as you're agreeing to stay on top of any bugs that do > appear and get them fixed in a timely manner, I'm ok with this. I agree. > > docbook-xsl: version in Debian is 1.71.0 and the latest available > > upstream version is 1.71.1 - also a bug-fix release fixing a bug > > reported to the Debian BTS and several bugs reported only upstream. But > > the latter one misses some files in the source tarball and it does not > > contain the fix for Debian bug > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=310895. So I was > > talking with Michael Smith, one of the upstream authors and release > > managers for docbook-xsl and he told me, that he could maybe do a new > > release after November 20th. This release would be 1.72.0, because some > > changes were made to the behaviour of docbook-xsl. But IMO and AFAIK it > > will not break any package/application depending on docbook-xsl. I would > > really like to include the latest available docbook-xsl into Etch and > > only include important bug-fixes from upstream CVS, not an older > > docbook-xsl with massive bug-fixes from upstream CVS - this is always a > > pain, because upstream is very active and some bug-fixes need a rewrite > > of parts of the stylesheets. So what is your opinion about this? Am I > > allowed to include the latest available release into Etch? > > No. An "IMO" is not enough when we're talking about introducing > incompatibilities in a package as deep in the dependency chain as this one > is. We've already been dealing with a dozen or so build failures over the > past few weeks caused by regressions in various TeX-related packages, we > don't need to add to this with behavior changes in our xsl stack. Ok. But could I package the bug-fix release 1.71.1 (+ adding the missing files in the source tarball and the patches to fix the 2 open (forwarded) Debian bugs and a few newly discovered bugs reported to upstream)? It's just a bug-fix release for the current version in Debian Sid/Etch. I followed their SVN changes and I'm sure, it will not break anything. I just did not already do this, because I was offline with a broken harddrive. Do I get an ok for this? Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
