Thanks, will do. On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 13:54 -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > I would suggest emailing [EMAIL PROTECTED] or filing a > bug against ftp.debian.org, since they handle /new. > Justin > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:37:00PM -0400, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > I'm afraid I'm just back from a couple of weeks out of the country and > > with very limited email contact. During this time, my packages were > > (rightfully) rejected from the NEW queue, and the 0-day NMU policy took > > effect, under which you NMU-ed my packages. I had not foreseen this > > change, since I figured, my old packages are fine, the new ones will go > > in "when they're ready". > > > > Unfortunately, this had the detrimental effect of assigning the -c2 > > label to library packages with only one binary change: the new C++ ABI. > > If you read debian-beowulf, you know that I have been preparing a 1.2.7 > > upload with c2 which also includes removal of the slog library (by > > upstream) and addition of fortran 90 libs using the new gfortran > > compiler. > > > > Since upstream has not changed its library sonames (in spite of removing > > slog, on which mpe used to depend), your NMU would force me to use a new > > non-standard change to the library package name to account for these > > updates. > > > > Therefore, is there any way to retract your NMU packages from the NEW > > queue? (Actually, I don't see them there, but they should be because > > they involve renamed packages...) This would make my life much easier. > > I'll have new 1.2.7 packages available by tomorrow, to replace the ones > > you uploaded; if simply uploading mine will make this happen then I'll > > do that. > > > > Oh well, I suppose it's my fault for not getting my updated c2 packages > > uploaded within the few days between the gcc 4.0 upgrade and my travel. > > Thanks for the emails and NMU, I hope we can pull back or replace > > 1.2.5.3-6.1, and I'll use (some version of) your patch (with attribution > > of course) in my 1.2.7 packages. > > > > Regards, > > > > -Adam > > > > On Thu, 2005-08-04 at 02:16 +0200, Adeodato Sim? wrote: > > > tag 320891 +patch > > > tag 321052 +patch > > > tag 321093 +patch > > > tag 321158 +patch > > > thanks > > > > > > Hello Adam, > > > > > > I've prepared a non-maintainer upload to fix the various RC bugs > > > reported against the mpich source package. It is based on the > > > 1.2.5.3-6 version you uploaded a month ago, which was recently > > > rejected from the NEW queue. > > > > > > I attach the NMU diff and, for your convenience, an diff of the result > > > of applying the new 18_link_against_needed_libs.dpatch, so it can be > > > read more easily. > > > > > > As the diff is sort of big, I will wait a bit before making the upload > > > despite being in 0-day NMU policy; I'd really like to upload (or not) > > > after having heard from you, but note that I can't wait indefinitely. > > > So please let me know if there are any problems with the proposed > > > patch I should fix before uploading, or if you'll be making an upload > > > yourself _soon_. > > > > > > Hoping being of help,
-Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
