On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 14:26 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > "Adam D. Barratt" <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes: > > It looks like this issue still affects the unstable package; is that > > correct? If so then it should be resolved there first, before we > > consider a tpu. > That is correct. I will NMU 2.92-2 in unstable soon.
That appears to have turned in to 2.92+dfsg1-0.1? > > A quick query on the proposed diff - why is the same symlink being > > managed both via debian/links and an "ln -sf" (and later rm) in > > debian/rules? > debian/links is for the symlink which gets shipped in the resulting > package, whereas I left the ln -sf/rm in debian/rules for providing the > glyphlist.txt at compile time. I’m not sure if anything actually uses > that, or might use it in the future, so I am playing it safe here :). Okay. > David Prévot <taf...@debian.org> writes: > > Is there any reason not to push this version directly in unstable ? > > (2.92+dfsg1-1.1 is greater than 2.92-2 anyway). 2.92+dfsg1-0.1 might be > > more conventional for an initial NMU too. > Well, the version in unstable has changes (e.g. hardening directives) > which I presume will not be accepted in a subsequent unblock request. > > Adam: Does that match your opinion? Or do you prefer an unblock request > instead? I'd prefer the tpu at this point. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
