Thanks for all the answers. I think I will add an ubuntu version to
the package, but no further changes. I can track debian updates in the
merges report. The bug approach with a tag seems a bit fragile.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 8:33 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:52:08PM
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:52:08PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:35 PM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:03:01PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> > > haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
> > > line is upstream's
I have no real opinion on the main question, but on a question of fact:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 04:52:08PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:35 PM Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> > What about using a block-proposed bug on the package instead?
>
> Hm, let's see how that would
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 3:35 PM Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:03:01PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
> > line is upstream's stable LTS line, and I would like
Hi Andreas,
On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:03:01PM -0300, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
> line is upstream's stable LTS line, and I would like to stay there.
>
> Debian experimental already has 2.1.0-2, which is also an
Hi all,
haproxy is currently a sync in ubuntu, at version 2.0.10-1. The 2.0.x
line is upstream's stable LTS line, and I would like to stay there.
Debian experimental already has 2.1.0-2, which is also an upstream
stable line, but not an LTS.
I would prefer that we don't move to 2.1.0 for the
