Hello Andreas,
> at first thanks a lot for all your patches and specifically the patience
> you had since I was simply waiting for the next upstream version to take
> action on this issue. Since upstream has now released 2.2.6 I was
> updating the package, applied the patches and uploaded (but it will need
> to pass new queue due to the package name change).
I'm glad the patches were useful and that the new release is on its way,
thanks a lot for your help and cooperation on solving the issue. I'll
wait until the package passes the new queue and the dust settles to take
further action on this package, but it's great to finally be close to
being able to mark this issue completed.
> Well, the test was passing in the new upstream version. May be the
> issue to run in the right sequence was solved? At least I have not
> noticed any problem.
At a first glance, I couldn't pinpoint what exactly caused the test
order issue to be solved, but it seems to be the case. In any case, if
it reappears please ping me back and I'd be more than happy to lend a
hand.
> > I'm also wondering if it would be a good time to try to contact upstream
> > again in the hopes of eventually fixing the conflict upstream, maybe
> > via github? I'd be willing to do so, provided you find it acceptable!
>
> As I said I think its an acceptable solution. I have reported the issue
> upstream[1].
Thanks as well for doing so! I'll be keeping an eye on the github issue,
in the hopes of reaching a more "universal" solution.
Again, thanks a lot, Andreas!
--
Diego M. Rodriguez
36B3 42A9 9F2F 2CFB F79B FF9B B6C4 B901 06BC E232
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
