On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:04:06 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Just for the sake of interest: The no-no for the Debhelper 5 to 7 bump > is only because you consider the *change* with potential consequences as > to heavy for last minute Squeeze inclusion or is there something else > which makes it a no-no? > It's not the minimal required fix for a RC bug -> it's a no-no.
Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
