Unfortunately, that's not feasible --- upstream fixed that bug by reworking the entire internal document model, and it's all interdependent on the rest of the changes, so it'd be a major engineering effort to do. I wouldn't be desireable anyway, as the end result would be a version of the package which is substantially different from any upstream release of WordGrinder.
Why is it problematic to pushing the stable version into oldstable? It's a completely trivial build, being *literally* apt-get source && debuild. Here's the backport I prepared to prove it: https://mentors.debian.net/package/wordgrinder What's the user value in keeping 0.5.1 in oldstable rather than just upgrading to the stable version? On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 at 00:22 Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> wrote: > David Given <d...@cowlark.com> (2017-07-10): > > Well, I actually approached backports, and they firmly told me to come > > here instead (and even provided instructions)... > > > > Okay, so what now? I don't really want a backport anyway; I just want > > the version that's currently in stable pushed to jessie as well. That > > version has been in Debian since late 2015, so it's not precisely new; > > it's not like I'm proposing an unstable version. > > > > I do *not* want the package removed from jessie. It turns out there's > > still a fair number of people who use it, on jessie, and I want to make > > sure that they're supported. > > Then extract targeted patches to fix specific bugs in jessie, and propose > a smaller debdiff/diffstat than the one Adam pointed out. > > > KiBi. > -- ┌─── http://cowlark.com ─── │ "There is nothing in the world so dangerous --- and I mean *nothing* │ --- as a children's story that happens to be true." --- Master Li Kao, │ _The Bridge of Birds_
