Hi, Santiago Vila wrote: > BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in > 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number > like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which > break because of this? If not, I feel that the BTS is being abused.
If it wouldn't break stuff I wouldn't have filed this as a "important" bug (but as minor) openoffice.org 3.x is already prepared for lenny backports and does that based on checking lsb_releases output. Without hacking it to use =sid for the variable (which is bogus, and breaks the distribution which should not be named, too) I loose the changes for the mono 2.0 transition and the dependency on the "normal" liblucene2-java (it would use the internal copy instead) when uploading this without change built on a sid/building on a buildd which for some reason has base-files 5. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
