[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? Regards, Adam
