Control: tags -1 + pending
On Wed, 2016-12-28 at 18:36 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> [recipient list trimmed and sent to the release.d.o bug rather than the
> e2fsprogs one]
>
> On Tue, 2016-12-27 at 19:56 +, 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?
Answer came there none. However, I noticed that the libraries produced
by e2fsprogs are multi-arch:same, so I scheduled binNMUs for all
architectures in jessie, which have now been flagged for acceptance into
p-u.
Regards,
Adam
