Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
From: Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:31:25 +0000 (UTC)
Message-id: <[🔎] slrnebdbct.5n9.nospam@sshway.ssh.pusling.com>
References: <200606201244.09101.danchev@spnet.net> <[🔎] 200607011620.26778.danchev@spnet.net> <[🔎] 20060701170642.GF2561@schmehl.info> <[🔎] 200607131809.58282.danchev@spnet.net> <[🔎] 607410480607131322l4e5cfe86ma6dbf2b346e6454c@mail.gmail.com>

On 2006-07-13, Nigel Jones <nigelj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>From memory, aren't NMU's (even more so, non-DD NMU's) only meant to
> fix RC bugs?  Not new upstream releases?

0-day nmus are to fix RC bugs.

/Sune

Reply to:

References:
- Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
  - From: George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>
- Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
  - From: Alexander Schmehl <alexander@schmehl.info>
- Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
  - From: George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>
- Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
  - From: "Nigel Jones" <nigelj@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
Next by Date: Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
Previous by thread: Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
Next by thread: Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread