[xmlsec] that release question again
aleksey at aleksey.com
Tue Jan 20 15:40:19 PST 2004
Ok, I have no problems with it. Can you make sure that
current cvs head is OK? If it is so then I'll package
new tarball in a day or so.
John Belmonte wrote on 1/20/2004, 3:31 PM:
> [I posted this yesterday from the wrong email address, so here it is
> again. The late breaking news is that gnutls 1.x made it into Debian.
> Still, I'm interested in the latest xmlsec fixes for nss, because I plan
> to enable that engine finally.]
> Sorry Aleksey, but I have to ask about when the next release is again.
> There is pressure these days for xmlsec 1.2.x since it is required by
> pyxmlsec (see http://bugs.debian.org/228531). Also, as I mentioned
> before, Debian may be approaching a freeze for the next release, so I'd
> like to get a recent version of xmlsec in before that happens.
> Part of this is my fault, because on the last few occasions I should
> have verified that the CVS head was acceptable before asking you to make
> a release. (In this case I know it's OK because you've only made
> changes for my reported problems :-) .)
> The other cause is that I'm being somewhat pedantic about not wanting to
> package a patched xmlsec. If my package says "version 1.2.3", I want it
> to really mean 1.2.3 as released by upstream. Also in the case of a
> change to configure.in, it propagates to many other files that must be
> patched, because the Debian build does not run autoconf.
> http:// if ile.org/
> xmlsec mailing list
> xmlsec at aleksey.com
More information about the xmlsec