shibboleth-sp2: how to get rid of bug/xmltooling? and future

[Russ Allbery]

Ferenc Wagner <wferi at niif.hu> writes:

> I didn't touch bug/gcc-4.3, should it also get reverted, or did you
> leave that out when you imported the new upstream so it can be simply
> deleted?

It can go.  Done.

> We sort of already decided not to do that, if I remember correctly.
> Nobody needs 2.0 backports now that 2.1 is released.  If that means
> there'll be no official backports for Etch, then be it...

Ah, right.

> Reading the homepage I can't tell whether etch-backports will be open
> again after the release of Lenny, or only lenny-backports will receive
> packages from the post-lenny testing.  What's the case?

I think it will be open after the release of lenny and post-lenny packages
are eligible for uploading there.  Usually activity drops off a lot,
though.

> Sure, I'll do that.  Does that consist of merging master into the etch
> branch and start from there?

Well, if we're not uploading an official backports.org upload, you can
basically do it however is convenient, since it doesn't require me to
build and upload anything.  But yeah, that's what I'd do.  There may be a
pile of conflicts to sort through, depending on whether we had alternative
fixes to some of the bugs on the etch branch already.

The other option is to drop the etch branch and rebranch off of master, if
that would be less work.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>