[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RFS: iptables-persistent 0.5.7~bpo60+1



Dear backporters,

As the wheezy release is coming really close now I would like to have
the wheezy version of iptables-persistent also in squeeze-backports.


I therefore created the backport and uploaded it to mentors.debian.net:

 http://mentors.debian.net/package/iptables-persistent
 dget -x
 http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/i/iptables-persistent/iptables-persistent_0.5.7~bpo60+1.dsc


The debdiff is minimal (only changes to /debian/changelog), and it's
attached to this mail.

As the changes to the version which is currently is in squeeze is a lit
bit longer I've attached the changes file also to this mail.


I would be very happy if someone could review and upload the package
for me.


Regards,
Andreas Rütten

-- 
Andreas Rütten                           mailto:AndreasRuetten@gmx.de
                                           xmpp:AndreasRuetten@gmx.de
                                          irc://irc.oftc.net/aruetten

4096R: 0x6C9DFFB2 / 8394 99DA 59BD BCE2 3FC8 3A9E 6633 0089 6C9D FFB2
File lists identical (after any substitutions)

Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
------------------------------------------------
Version: [-0.5.7-] {+0.5.7~bpo60+1+}

diff -Nru iptables-persistent-0.5.7/debian/changelog iptables-persistent-0.5.7~bpo60+1/debian/changelog
--- iptables-persistent-0.5.7/debian/changelog	2013-01-04 20:17:21.000000000 +0100
+++ iptables-persistent-0.5.7~bpo60+1/debian/changelog	2013-04-01 14:33:49.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+iptables-persistent (0.5.7~bpo60+1) squeeze-backports; urgency=low
+
+  * Rebuild for squeeze-backports.
+
+ -- Andreas Rütten <AndreasRuetten@gmx.de>  Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:24:33 +0200
+
 iptables-persistent (0.5.7) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * [e7534a] Fix bashism in debian/iptables-persistent.init.

Attachment: iptables-persistent_0.5.7~bpo60+1_i386.changes
Description: Binary data

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: