On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 01:20:37PM +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > Hi Ben, > > 2015-04-12 1:38 GMT+02:00 Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk>: > > On Sun, 2015-04-12 at 01:05 +0200, Bálint Réczey wrote: > > [...] > >> I assume this situation is not unique to Wireshark. What do you think, > >> what would be the best for the LTS project in Wireshark's case and > >> what is the general LTS strategy in similar cases? > > > > I think the best approach would be either: > > a. remove it from support and upload wireshark 1.8 to squeeze-backports > > if possible, or > > b. upload the backported wireshark 1.8 package to squeeze-lts > I would be happy to go either of those options. Undoing the multiarch-related > changes would make 1.8.x build fine on squeeze. > Who should make the call?
I'd say it's your call. Package maintainer can maintain their own packages in LTS and if you consider it the best solution (and I agree since wireshark is a leaf package), go ahead. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lts-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150412114907.ga6...@inutil.org