Am 28.03.19 um 11:08 schrieb wf...@niif.hu: > Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org> writes: > >> I'm not opposed to a backport, and I don't think there are many >> problems with attempting it. However, I do not have time to prepare >> and test such a backport. Help welcome. > > I can do the busy-work of backporting, but I lack the perspective to > tell whether it's feasible now or in the long run. Looking at the > changelog it feels safe to install 1.56 on a stretch system, and this > close to the release I wouldn't expect anything to come up before > stretch-backports closes, though... >
Personally I prefer to revert the compat bumps when doing backports for stretch (like in [1]) as I like to to keep the impact on the stable system as minimal as possible. Pulling in a newer i-s-h is a rather significant change. Thankfully not as significant as we had between jessie → stretch. So a backport of i-s-h might indeed be feasible on a cursory glance. Regards, Michael [1] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rsyslog/commit/6bd5a7915e826650750e5864e035edb1f4d2e31a -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
