On 13/02/2008, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> [A] Removing /usr/lib in $auto_path [3]. That has been already
> announced in the past message with motivations for that, and
> experimental packages are available in experimental for testing.
> We are going to release a non-/usr/lib Tcl/Tk in unstable…

Any timeframe for that? I noted the “ASAP� some words later, but
having an idea of the #days might help coordinating uploads.

> … and preparing a few NMUs for packages which need fixed
> pkgIndex.tcl for that. That will happen as soon as possible.

What about first reporting bugs (with eventually the NMU patches that
are already prepared)? See gcc folks' advanced warnings, that looks
like the way to go, instead of NMUing in the wild.

Cheers,

--
Cyril Brulebois

On 2/14/08, Cyril Brulebois <cyril.brulebois@enst-bretagne.fr> wrote:
> On 13/02/2008, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > [A] Removing /usr/lib in $auto_path [3]. That has been already
> > announced in the past message with motivations for that, and
> > experimental packages are available in experimental for testing.
> > We are going to release a non-/usr/lib Tcl/Tk in unstable…
>
> Any timeframe for that? I noted the "ASAP" some words later, but
> having an idea of the #days might help coordinating uploads.

We're planning to file bugreports during the next week or two.

>
> > … and preparing a few NMUs for packages which need fixed
> > pkgIndex.tcl for that. That will happen as soon as possible.
>
> What about first reporting bugs (with eventually the NMU patches that
> are already prepared)? See gcc folks' advanced warnings, that looks
> like the way to go, instead of NMUing in the wild.

You're right. The procedure will be the following: 1) Reporting bug
with proposed patch; 2) After some time period (a week?) NMUing.

--
Sergei Golovan