On 7 September 2012 16:38, Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:25:12AM +0100, Thomas Leonard wrote: >> On 2 September 2012 16:51, Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 03:42:50PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> > >> > Sorry, my mistake, this should have been "Hi Thomas". >> >> Hi Bart, >> >> No problem. Are there any issues with the package split and rename? >> >> Splitting the package really helps on servers. e.g. ~100 MB of >> dependencies for zeroinstall-injector vs ~1 MB for 0install-core on a >> minimal system (with Python). > > Hi Thomas, > > The upstream source package name is still zeroinstall-injector. > http://0install.net/install-source.html > http://downloads.sf.net/project/zero-install/injector/1.11/zeroinstall-injector-1.11.tar.bz2 > > I have not yet looked any further than that.
I can rename it if necessary (1.12 will have the new name upstream), but I don't think this needs to hold up the Debian package split, does it? Note that this bug is linked from the front page of http://0install.net ("we need a sponsor from Debian to approve the change") if you need confirmation that upstream agrees with the rename. Thanks, -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
