On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 11:38 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2012-10-07 at 14:30 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > > On 21/09/2012 04:58, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > According to bug #678979 [0], which was submitted by the lead > > > upstream developer, slony 2.0 does not work well with postgresql > > > 9.1. Therefore, we had to resolve to making an upgrade to slony > > > version 2.1, and I request that that be allowed into wheezy now. > [...] > > Unfortunately, we are not able to accept such large changes at this > > stage of the freeze. [2] > > > > Since slony in Debian have little popcon, does it make sense to skip the > > Wheezy release? iow, remove slony from wheezy (since it doesn't work and > > we are not able to accept the new one). Alternatively, we could very > > well accept a targeted fix based on current Wheezy's version… (correct > > me if I'm wrong), the discussion in #678979 made me think that it was > > not possible to extract a minimal patch. > > Ping?
As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
