On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 22:28 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > "Adam D. Barratt" <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes: > > What's the status of getting this fixed in unstable, as already > > requested by Julien in #693208? > Why is it necessary to fix this in unstable? This’d require introducing > an epoch. Let me know if you insist on it, but I don’t understand why > this is important.
I wasn't particularly suggesting re-introducing 3.0 to unstable. However, given that packages from tpu get essentially no testing at all (no pun intended) before hitting testing, being able to prove a patch in unstable first avoids a number of (admittedly not all) potential issues. Looking at the proposed tpu diff and the 3.0 -> 3.1 diff, it looks like the armhf changes should apply "as is" to 3.1; has anyone tried that? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1360189639.4494.20.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
