invoke-rc.d mass bug filing: binNMU candidates
(I'm not subscribed to -release, please Cc me on replies, thanks.) In May, I did a mass bug filing for the policy change related to invoke-rc.d [1]. Of the bugs that still remain open, four could be fixed by a simple rebuild, without any changes to the source, because they were built by an old version (a very old version) of debhelper. The packages and bugs in question are: * oss-preserve #367726 * diald #367735 * battery-stats #367745 * apcd #367749 If I have understood correctly, the release managers can trigger binNMUs for these. Would it be appropriate to do this even if the bugs are not release critical? (The other bugs need source changes to work.) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg01746.html -- You need fewer comments, if you choose your names carefully. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: invoke-rc.d mass bug filing: binNMU candidates
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 02:00:10PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: In May, I did a mass bug filing for the policy change related to invoke-rc.d [1]. Of the bugs that still remain open, four could be fixed by a simple rebuild, without any changes to the source, because they were built by an old version (a very old version) of debhelper. The packages and bugs in question are: * oss-preserve #367726 * diald #367735 * battery-stats #367745 * apcd #367749 If I have understood correctly, the release managers can trigger binNMUs for these. Would it be appropriate to do this even if the bugs are not release critical? Yep! BinNMUs scheduled. Let's give these packages a chance to go 3 stable releases without a sourceful upload. ;) Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
