Hi!
> AFAICT midgard2-core is the only package of the two having an open RC
> bug affecting testing (namely, #677795). So keeping it while removing
> php5-midgard2 from testing would not help us (from a release PoV).
> Note that php5-midgard2 is only being removed because it
> (Build-)Depnds on
On 2013-04-10 10:16, Piotr Pokora wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> for the record, the discussion on #677795 lead to a release team
>> member write "As it is, I am inclined to agree with OdyX's
>> observations, so I am tagging the bug as will-remove for now".
>>
>> I don't feel I have the right hat to close thes
On 10.04.2013 11:10, Piotr Pokora wrote:
After 300 days the easiest solution seems to be "will-remove for
now"
but there hasn't been any single explanation why one package
migrated
while the other not?
It didn't migrate because of #678531 still being considered as open
by
the BTS until Niel
Hi!
>> After 300 days the easiest solution seems to be "will-remove for now"
>> but there hasn't been any single explanation why one package migrated
>> while the other not?
>
> It didn't migrate because of #678531 still being considered as open by
> the BTS until Niels fixed the bug state up in N
On 10.04.2013 09:16, Piotr Pokora wrote:
OK, so can we keep midgard2-core 10.05.7.1-1?
It migrated to testing 300 days ago, while package which depends on
it
- php5-midgard2 - which also has been uploaded 300 days ago didn't
migrate?
After 300 days the easiest solution seems to be "will-remove
Hi!
> for the record, the discussion on #677795 lead to a release team
> member write "As it is, I am inclined to agree with OdyX's
> observations, so I am tagging the bug as will-remove for now".
>
> I don't feel I have the right hat to close these two unblock requests
> (#688966 and #692358) acc
Hi,
for the record, the discussion on #677795 lead to a release team
member write "As it is, I am inclined to agree with OdyX's
observations, so I am tagging the bug as will-remove for now".
I don't feel I have the right hat to close these two unblock requests
(#688966 and #692358) accordingly, b
>> Only (and only) if midgard2-core[0] and php5-midgard2[1] are
>> distributed together.
>
> Why?
Because php5-midgard2 provides language bindings to midgard2 content repository.
Unfortunately there's no php-gir bindings. Testing distribution has
midgard2-core 10.05.7 and php5-midgard2 10.05.6. Bo
Piotr Pokora wrote (04 Mar 2013 15:15:23 GMT) :
>>> Exactly. There are no changes made to php5-midgard2 package, so it
>>> only requires rebuild against fixed[0] midgard2-core package.
>>
>> OK, this confirms #692358 and #688966 are totally unrelated, then.
> Only (and only) if midgard2-core[0] a
>> Exactly. There are no changes made to php5-midgard2 package, so it
>> only requires rebuild against fixed[0] midgard2-core package.
>
> OK, this confirms #692358 and #688966 are totally unrelated, then.
Only (and only) if midgard2-core[0] and php5-midgard2[1] are
distributed together.
In any o
Hi again,
and sorry for the flood..
Piotr Pokora wrote (04 Mar 2013 09:15:53 GMT) :
> Exactly. There are no changes made to php5-midgard2 package, so it
> only requires rebuild against fixed[0] midgard2-core package.
OK, this confirms #692358 and #688966 are totally unrelated, then.
Thank you.
Hi!
> So, php5-midgard2 would need just a rebuild to pick up the new library
> name, together with uploading of midgard2-core. The mentors link of
> php5-midgard2 has expired, but if I recall correctly Piotr had only
> indeed put it there with a changelog entry like "rebuild", so there are
> no ac
12 matches
Mail list logo
