[Pkg-tcltk-devel] nsf / packaging 2.2.0 and bug 890052

[Sergei Golovan]

Hi Stefan,

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 6:27 PM Stefan Sobernig
<stefan.sobernig at wu.ac.at> wrote:
>
> Hi Sergei!
>
> Thanks for the reply. I completed 2.2.0 packaging from my perspective,
> can I kindly ask for your review:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/tcltk-team/nsf/compare/debian%2F2.1.0-4...debian%2Fsid

Will do in a few days. Sorry, I've missed this email. Thank you for
pinging me on IRC.

>
> >> Oh, it seems there is patching of tclConfig.sh.in in place:
> >>
> >> https://salsa.debian.org/tcltk-team/tcl8.6/blob/master/debian/patches/tclprivate.diff
> >> I take this as the recommended practise.
> >
> > I'd say that it's up to you to decide.
>
> I took this approach (patching *Config.sh.in) and verified that all
> advertised paths are valid (i.e., contain the promised headers and libs).
>
> Is this okay from your perspective?
>
> Besides: In the meantime, we were alerted that NSF 2.1.0 became
> effectively broken with the 8.6.9 release (and any future ones). In Jan/
> Feb 2018, namespace-related fixes were backported from 8.7 into 8.6 and
> now aired with 8.6.9; NSF 2.2.0 is robust/ okay against these.
>
> How should we proceed here:
>
> * It is important to us that NSF 2.2.0 becomes available as soon as
> possible.
>
> * How can we best discontinue NSF 2.1.0 installations in Debian?
> Recommending 2.2.0 upgrades and/ or removing 2.1.0 when 8.6.9 is
> installed? Should we push out a 2.1.0-5 which contracts a strict
> dependency on <= 8.6.8?

I'll look into this. Probably, adding "Breaks: nsf (<< 2.2.0)" to tcl8.6 8.6.9
will do the trick.

Cheers!
-- 
Sergei Golovan