Control: tags -1 + pending On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 18:36 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > [recipient list trimmed and sent to the release.d.o bug rather than the > e2fsprogs one] > > On Tue, 2016-12-27 at 19:56 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > [...] > > On Tue, 2016-12-27 at 12:31 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > [...] > > > Agreed, that seems to be the best way to handle things. So that means > > > we would need to do a binNMU for e2fsck-static/1.42.12-2 for the > > > following architectures: > > > > > > alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64 powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc > > > > > > I've reassigned this to the release team to see if the Stable Release > > > Managers agree (which hopefully they will). > > > > Only three of those architectures - amd64, i386 and powerpc - are in > > stable so are the only ones that are relevant as far as the release.d.o > > bug is concerned. I've scheduled binNMUs for those; you'll have to > > handle the others separately, or explain which Debian architectures you > > actually meant (for instance, "arm" hasn't been used as a Debian > > architecture name for several releases now). > > Are binNMUs for any other architectures in stable required?
Answer came there none. However, I noticed that the libraries produced by e2fsprogs are multi-arch:same, so I scheduled binNMUs for all architectures in jessie, which have now been flagged for acceptance into p-u. Regards, Adam
