Re: libbpp-seq_2.2.0-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Tue, 17 May 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bad dak is bad
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libbpp-seq&suite=unstable
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.0.3-1 | oldstable | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1 | stable | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1 | stable-kfreebsd | kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1 | unstable | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
>
>
>
> dak ls libbpp-seq9v5
> libbpp-seq9v5 | 2.2.0-1 | testing | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
> libbpp-seq9v5 | 2.2.0-1 | unstable | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
>
>
> I guess Andreas is fully correct, the rename is not necessary for backports, right?
I would expect it to follow unstable. I guess the rename had a reason.
Alex
Reply to: