On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:18:54, Nick Andrik wrote: > 2012/12/12 intrigeri <intrig...@debian.org>: > > Hi, > > > > Nick Andrik wrote (12 Dec 2012 14:32:35 GMT) : > >> I don't have strong feelings in any case, I don't expect someone to be > >> using this version of the package nowadays. > >> On the other hand, I don't also see the clear benefits from removing it. > > > > OK. I think the key question then becomes: as the upcoming maintainer > > of kismet in Debian, do you want to commit to maintain 2008-05-R1-4.3 > > in stable once Wheezy is released? (as in: dealing with security > > issues, fixing RC bugs through stable updates, answering bug > > reports, etc.) > > If there are any bugs reported on functionality (which I doubt) then > it makes no sense trying to fix the 2008 version.
Ubuntu has several SIGSEGV crashes reported on kismet 2008-05-R1-4.3: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kismet/+bugs Upstream (Mike Kershaw, who I see at MHVLUG meetings) is frustrated by the fact that this old version of kismet is still being shipped in Ubuntu, because he regularly gets bugs reported to him directly from users that he isn't able to help with because the version is ancient. I'm adding Mike to the list of recipients so that he can have a chance to offer an opinion on whether 2008-06-R1-4.3 should be shipped in Wheezy (and thus shipped for another two years in Debian). It'll be good to get a newer Kismet package in Unstable, since Ubuntu is based on Unstable. > All other bugs are OK. > > BTW, I guess there is no chance to have the new package in wheezy once > it gets released, is this correct? To get a new version in it would have had to have been in Unstable before the freeze in June. Around that time I made a newer Kismet package using debhelper v9, but it wasn't ready before the freeze and the package I made still needs a couple of tweaks, which is why I hadn't tried to file an ITA. Nick -- let me know if you'd like to see what I did re: /debian/* files. The main thing that needs tweaking in the package I came up with had to do with the menu shortcut and how to handle access permissions correctly. > If we need to fix anything then I will have to keep different branches, > i.e. one for stable and one for testing, right? Maybe. There will be different package versions, but "branches" implies using a version control system which isn't a requirement AFAIK. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle chris.kna...@coredump.us
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
