[xmlsec] that release question again

Aleksey Sanin 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. 
> Regards, 
> -John 
> -- 
> http:// if  ile.org/ 
> _______________________________________________ 
> xmlsec mailing list 
> xmlsec at aleksey.com 
> http://www.aleksey.com/mailman/listinfo/xmlsec 

More information about the xmlsec mailing list