On 2011-07-11 22:26, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > Hi Niels, > > [...] >> Yes, unfortunately we did not manage to reply you in time before I saw >> the sat4j upload. :) >> > > Sorry, this is probably about the only time I was too fast in doing > something... > :-) >
:) >>> Anyhow, I'd suggest either filing a new bug with eclipse or upgrading >>> #631382 to >>> higher severity. There are essentially two options out of this mess: either >>> eclipse being upgraded to 3.7 or me uploading sat4j 2.2.3 once again, as a >>> new >>> source package. >>> >> >> Technically a bump of the dependencies and rebuild of eclipse is enough, >> unfortunately every time we do this, we trigger #587657 for all >> upgraders. >.> >> > > Just quickly browsed over 587657 - is there anything I could do as sat4j > maintainer? As said above, I'm ok uploading multiple source packages to carry > different versions. Not that I would be a really beautiful solution, but if it > helps to take some burden off of you eclipse maintainers, I'd be happy to > offer > that kind of help! > Not sure how it will help unless the second version is frozen to the needs of eclipse... and it would not protect us from the lucene2 maintainers, who sometimes also wants to upload a new version. The best long term solution would to get a fix for [1]. [1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=351485 >>> Feel free to quote any of the above in the bug report to eclipse. >>> >> >> No need; I am stalking your package. :D >> > > Grrr... :-D Hmm, probably then the explicit TO: wouldn't be necessary - sorry > for the dupe in that case. > > Best, > Michael > Its okay, my client filters differently for explicit To/Cc emails (and the other one disappears into the magic "bugs" folder :P ) ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
