Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: > Hi, > > libxklavier and libgnomekbd need a transition. I uploaded them to > experimental a > few days ago, and uploaded most of the rdeps too. I would like to upload them > to > unstable now to start the transition. > > The build-rdeps of the packages are: > > emi...@saturno:~$ build-rdeps libxklavier12-dev > Reverse Build-depends in main: > ------------------------------ > > gnome-settings-daemon > xfkc > xfce4-xkb-plugin > xfce4-settings > kdebase-workspace > glunarclock > control-center > libgnomekbd > gnome-applets > > Found a total of 9 reverse build-depend(s) for libxklavier12-dev. > > > emi...@saturno:~$ build-rdeps libgnomekbd-dev > Reverse Build-depends in main: > ------------------------------ > > gnome-settings-daemon > gnome-screensaver > control-center > gnome-applets > > Found a total of 4 reverse build-depend(s) for libgnomekbd-dev. > > > As you can see, the libgnomekbd-dev transition only adds itself and > gnome-screensaver to the list of packages, so it wouldn't be a big deal to > transition them together. > > I can upload all of them, except xfce4-xkb-plugin, xfce4-settings and xfkc > (which will be done by Yves-Alexis), kdebase-workspace (only needs to change > the > build-dependency, the code has an #if #else to build with both APIs), and > glunarclock (seems unnecessary, but in any case a rebuild should be enough). > > Should I let libxklavier-dev provide libxklavier12-dev for those packages that > will be fine with a binNMU? I'm not sure that's a good idea since the number > of > packages that would benefit is too few (3 or 4) and we want them to use > libxklavier-dev for the next time the SONAME changes. We could remove the > provides in the future though. > > What do you think? Can I start these two transitions together? If so, when is > OK > to do so?
Yes, it's ok. Please do it now. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
