* Russ Allbery [Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:10:51 -0800]:
Hi Russ,
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> This would enable for kdelibs to be a valid candidate for testing.
> > I might be missing something, but I don't think it would. I've been
> > watching exactly that to make sure that I wasn't holding up the KDE
> > transition, but as near as I can tell, KDE is heavily blocked on arts and
> > openexr and clearing krb5 wouldn't help much.
> > Did I read that wrong?
> Ah, I see, those are actually part of KDE.
Yes, right. They have to go together, so having kdelibs as a candidate
helps to know what bits are missing.
> As soon as libapache-mod-auth-kerb gets into unstable and I make sure that
> everything looks happy there now, I'll close this bug, so krb5 should be
> able to go in tomorrow.
Thanks. Now if you don't mind, with respect to this:
> That will mean that libapache-mod-auth-kerb may be broken in testing
> briefly, but we can bump the urgency of it if everything looks okay in
> unstable.
and this:
* Russ Allbery [Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:37:31 -0800]:
> > So, are there any issues that would advice against closing this bug
> > like, now? :)
> Yes, libapache-mod-auth-kerb. I'm sponsoring an upload of new packages
> today, but then it should probably age for a couple more days ideally and
> I don't really want to break libapache-mod-auth-kerb in testing
> immediately.
Particularly with respect the "I don't really want to break l-m-a-k in
testing immediately" and "that will mean that l-m-a-k may be broken in
testing briefly" bits: I don't know much of the interaction between
krb5 and l-m-a-k, but if the new krb5 breaks l-m-a-k, then a _real_ RC
bug should be in place against krb5 (and, pointing the obvious, one
knows of such brekage before krb5 enters testing because similar
versions are in testing and unstable). OTOH, if what you mean is that
l-m-a-k may break when compiled against the new krb5, then the RC bug
would go against l-m-a-k, and krb5 would migrate alone.
So, summarizing, perhaps I'm terribly confused, but whilst I
understand the existance of this bug to compensate the mistaken
urgency, I don't see why it should be coupled at all with a l-m-a-k
upload. Maybe I missed some part of the picture?
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code.
-- Ken Thompson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
