Rejecting gnunet 0.7.0e-3ubuntu1

Colin Watson cjwatson at
Tue Oct 17 09:49:19 BST 2006

gnunet (0.7.0e-3ubuntu1) edgy; urgency=low

  * Merge from debian unstable.
  * Rebuild fixes missing dependencies (Closes: Malone #66467)
  * Build with IPv6 support
  * Use debhelper compatibility level 5
  * Update init script:
   - create /var/run/gnunetd in init script
   - support reload
  * Add Spanish translation

 -- Kai Kasurinen <jozo at>  Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:21:11 +0300

gnunet (0.7.0e-3) unstable; urgency=low

  * Convert rules and control files in order to use cdbs.
  * debian/po/cs.po: Updated Czech translation. Thanks to Miroslav Kure (Closes: #389621).
  * debian/po/pt.po: Added Portuguese translation. Thanks to Rui Branco (Closes: #374058).

 -- Arnaud Kyheng <Arnaud.Kyheng at>  Sat, 29 Jul 2006 23:48:43 +0200

This is a big change (repackaging is inherently risky late in a release
cycle; if files go missing you don't have much time to correct the
situation) with, as far as I can see, few benefits. The only necessary
changes seem to be the rebuild to fix missing dependencies and the
creation of /var/run/gnunetd in the init script. Why did you feel it
necessary to do a merge from Debian at this point (months past upstream
version freeze) and make other potentially risky changes like enabling
IPv6 support?

I know universe has more relaxed rules than main, but this is a bit
much. A little over a week before release, I'd rather see an upload that
changes only what needs to be changed.


Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson at]

More information about the ubuntu-archive mailing list