On Sun, Oct 5, 2014, at 14:38, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 20:48:31 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > I hope we could leave it as that for the upload - nobody has a time > > > machine to undo the upload, but we could try to make it better now and > > > discuss where we should go. > > > > Ok, let's focus on libjpeg-progs, since I do not think there is a > > disagreement > > about it. What would you propose as a course of action that allow either > > libjpeg8 or lijpeg9 to provide libjpeg-progs with minimal disruption to the > > archive ? > > > libjpeg8 can start building an epoched libjpeg-progs.
The verb *can* here is not exactly correct. libjpeg8 (or libjpeg9 as Bill suggested he will be doing) *must* build epoched libjpeg-progs with epoch bumped to 2 as I have suggested in #763746 otherwise the new libjpeg-progs won't ever migrate to testing. Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> Knot DNS (https://www.knot-dns.cz/) – a high-performance DNS server -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
