On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:28 AM, Camm Maguire wrote:
> So true. I was hoping that debian unstable was an unused 'sandbox' for
> such things. Be that as it may, debian package numbers must monotonically
> increase lexicographically, and its not immediately clear what policy
> would be superior i
Greetings!
Robert Dodier writes:
> On 2015-10-12, Camm Maguire wrote:
>
>> please forward them to me. Again, I take from the above you are
>> referring to the 2.6.13pre source packaged in debian sid as 2.6.12-21.
>> 2.6.12 (packaged in debian stable as 2.6.12-1) should compile fine with
>> old
