On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 06:17:03AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > new uploads of the icu source are rejected, proposing to rename the > > icu-doc package built from the icu source. > To clarify my previous response, once icu gets uploaded with a current > version, icu28 should be removed. Therefore, either icu28's doc > package should be renamed or both should, but I would disagree with > the solution of renaming icu-doc from icu and keeping the one from > icu28. There's most likely no good reason to have multiple icu > versions in debian. icu28 was required by mono, which was the only > reason that it was packaged. (ivo is current icu maintainer and > previous xerces maintainer; xerces depends upon icu. blade is current > icu28 and mono maintainer. As new xerces maintainer, I would offer to > take over icu maintenance as well.) Anyway, these are just my > suggestions. :-) FWIW, icu28 is also used (in testing) by mail-notification; if it wasn't, it's likely that icu28 would have been pulled from sarge. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
