On 23/04/18 21:40, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort > <po...@debian.org> wrote: >> On 23/04/18 21:19, László Böszörményi (GCS) wrote: >>> As I remember, 99% of the FTBFS reasons were the icu-config removal, >>> others are the dependent package bugs I've already mentioned. I do not >>> recall any API change. In short, there are fifteen packages FTBFS and >>> all is due to the icu-config removal. This is true for the date of my >>> previous mail. There were several dependent packages upload since >>> then, but I think the situation remained the same. >> >> In that case I'm ok with removing icu-config, but please don't entangle that >> with the SONAME bump. That is, reintroduce icu-config so we can have an easy >> transition, and once the transition is finished, then you are free to drop >> icu-config. Sounds good? > I do agree and open to do an other compilation test of the dependent > packages with icu-config being available.
Thanks. Let me know how that goes, and I'll ack this transition as soon as possible. Cheers, Emilio
