Please unblock xmlto/0.0.20-3

2008-10-11 Thread Daniel Leidert
Please unblock xmlto: > xmlto (0.0.20-3) unstable; urgency=low > > * debian/control (Suggests): Added xmltex now providing passivetex > (closes: #416622, #440518). Thanks to Robert Wohlrab. > (Description): Added information about fop/docbook-xsl as > alternative to passivetex. >

Re: Please unblock xmlto/0.0.20-3

2008-10-11 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Daniel Leidert [Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:59:37 +0200]: > Please unblock xmlto: > > xmlto (0.0.20-3) unstable; urgency=low > > * debian/control (Suggests): Added xmltex now providing passivetex > > (closes: #416622, #440518). Thanks to Robert Wohlrab. > > (Description): Added information a

Re: Please unblock xmlto/0.0.20-3

2008-10-11 Thread Daniel Leidert
Am Samstag, den 11.10.2008, 19:22 +0200 schrieb Adeodato Simó: > * Daniel Leidert [Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:59:37 +0200]: > > > Please unblock xmlto: [..] > (Any reason why passivetex is still Suggested?) Just for Etch users/backports. It will be removed in Lenny+1. IMHO it doesn't hurt. Regards, Dan

Re: Please unblock xmlto/0.0.20-3

2008-10-11 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Daniel Leidert [Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:49:52 +0200]: > > (Any reason why passivetex is still Suggested?) > Just for Etch users/backports. It will be removed in Lenny+1. IMHO it > doesn't hurt. Oh, I'm not saying it hurts, I was just curious. But note that passivetex is not in etch either... (only