On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:34:50AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:59:27AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:09:11AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team > > > > whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to > > > > what about the transition to python 2.4? is it going to start or etch > > > is going to ship with 2.3? > > > what about the transition to libgnutls13 ? I noticed yesterday when > > debootstraping that we get libgnutls11, 12 AND 13 installed by default. > > Do we really need that many libgnutls ? > > I don't see anything at all in the reverse-deps that would explain > libgnutls11 being pulled in by debootstrap. Is it still hard-coded in a > package list somewhere in the version of debootstrap you're using?
# grep-available -s Package -s Priority -P libgnutls (...) Package: libgnutls12 Priority: standard Package: libgnutls13 Priority: important Package: libgnutls11 Priority: important > Anyway, it would be nice to get libgnutls11 out of etch completely, but > AFAICT it should at least have been removed from the list of base libs > already. If you wanted to file bugs and NMU (*not* 0-day NMUs) to take it > the rest of the way, that'd be great. :) I promise I'll deal with that as soon as I'll have time. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
