[Pkg-octave-devel] Re: Latest version of octave2.9-forge

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* Rafael Laboissiere <rafael at debian.org> [2007-01-07 15:54]:

> Version 2006.07.09+dfsg1-6 of octave2.9-forge has been in unstable since 16
> days and has no bugs filed against it.  Four bugs have been closed since
> the current version in testing (2006.07.09+dfsg1-4) was released: #393495,
> #403653, #403734, and #403864.  None of these bugs were RC, but it would be
> good to have a bug-free version of octave2.9-forge in etch.
> 
> However, before asking for hinting the latest version into etch, I need a
> clarification about a dependency issue, as shown in the page
> http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=octave2.9-forge:
> 
>   Dependency analysis (including build-depends; i386 only):
> 
>     * octave2.9-forge depends on libpng12-0 >= 1.2.8rel but testing has 1.2.15~beta5-1 (unstable has 1.2.15~beta5-1)
>           o binary package libpng12-0 is part of source package libpng
>                 + libpng has the same version in unstable and testing (1.2.15~beta5-1)
>                 + info: libpng has a version in experimental (1.4.0~beta16-0) 
> 
> The only architecture in which octave2.9-forge depends on the old version
> of libpng12-0 is i386.  Should I rebuild the package in an up-to-date etch
> chroot before asking for the hint?

* Julien Cristau <jcristau at debian.org> [2007-01-07 16:17]:

> On Sun, Jan  7, 2007 at 15:54:46 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> 
> >   Dependency analysis (including build-depends; i386 only):
> > 
> >     * octave2.9-forge depends on libpng12-0 >= 1.2.8rel but testing has 1.2.15~beta5-1 (unstable has 1.2.15~beta5-1)
> 
> This page doesn't seem to know about ~ in version strings, so I think
> you can just ignore that bit.

Thanks for the clarification.

May I then ask the release managers to hint octave2.9-forge_2006.07.09+dfsg1-6
into etch?

-- 
Rafael