Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-12-15 Thread Adam C Powell IV
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 15:05 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:29:11PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > Did you receive this email or any of this thread? It's now more than > > two weeks old, and I'd really like to upload a new PETSc 2.3.0 ASAP. > > So upload it? If you've

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-12-14 Thread Anthony Towns
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:29:11PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > Did you receive this email or any of this thread? It's now more than > two weeks old, and I'd really like to upload a new PETSc 2.3.0 ASAP. So upload it? If you've replied to the REJECT message with appropriate reasons why the RE

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-12-14 Thread Adam C Powell IV
Joerg, Did you receive this email or any of this thread? It's now more than two weeks old, and I'd really like to upload a new PETSc 2.3.0 ASAP. If you didn't see it, the discussion was on debian-release, archive at http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2005/11/msg00107.html , then Steve Langas

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-28 Thread Adam C Powell IV
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 17:50 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 06:57:36PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > Well, I think the factor there is that we "usually" want users to upgrade > > > to > > > the latest kernel automatically, whereas users of petsc usually can't > > > au

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-20 Thread Thomas Viehmann
Hi, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > * There is broad consensus for versioned -dev packages (e.g. > Thomas Viehmann's precedent, Junichi's libpkg-guide), > particularly for this case where both the Debian alternatives > system and PETSC_DIR mechanism allow users to select be

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-20 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 06:57:36PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > Well, I think the factor there is that we "usually" want users to upgrade to > > the latest kernel automatically, whereas users of petsc usually can't > > auto-upgrade to the new API. > Okay, then what about octave, another empt

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-20 Thread Adam C Powell IV
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 00:22 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > > > For that matter, why is it important that Debian provide support for > > > > > coinstallability with older packages that are, evidently, not > > > > > important >

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-19 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:53:57AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > > > For that matter, why is it important that Debian provide support for > > > > coinstallability with older packages that are, evidently, not important > > > > enough themselves to be supported by Debian? > > > In contrast, lib

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-16 Thread Adam C Powell IV
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 23:03 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 05:15:28PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > > I understand that, and the whole proposal. And it will break a lot of > > > > things for many of my u

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-16 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:46:04AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Steve Langasek] > > python-dev provides an interface that packages can build-depend on > > which gives them both /usr/bin/python, and a set of development tools > > from the corresponding version of python. This is not analogous

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-15 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Steve Langasek] > python-dev provides an interface that packages can build-depend on > which gives them both /usr/bin/python, and a set of development tools > from the corresponding version of python. This is not analogous to > petsc-dev, which only depends on the versioned -dev package. The on

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-15 Thread Steve Langasek
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 05:15:28PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > I understand that, and the whole proposal. And it will break a lot of > > > things for many of my users, who need to use old versions of the -dev > > > packages at th

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-15 Thread Adam C Powell IV
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:59 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > [redirecting this to -devel; discussions of ftp team NEW queue policies are > off-topic for -release.] Sorry, my mistake. I'm adding debian-beowulf because that's where some of PETSc's users are. > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:13:47PM -05

Re: petsc_2.3.0-1_i386.changes REJECTED

2005-11-14 Thread Steve Langasek
[redirecting this to -devel; discussions of ftp team NEW queue policies are off-topic for -release.] On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:13:47PM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > And thats what I asked for, yes. Drop the version from -dev|-dbg|-doc, > > use the shlib system for the rest (which makes pac