Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Right, not updating it now will get this change at the next point > release, since the source *is* 0.74 in sarge. Of course the alternative is a reversion via t-p-u. > > These and other frozen debs will have their udebs updated as the release > > team accepts new versions. > > I didn't understand the release team hints udeb's in, that's something > ftp-master does. The release team hinted in the sources & .deb's, but > the .udeb's remained as they were. They don't, but I track those and feed the changes to the ftp-masters. > > > os-prober: udeb's are from 1.04, sarge has 1.03 > > > Suggested resolution: Put 1.04 source package in sarge > > > > If you can tell why my existing hint to do that on newraff failed.. > > 1.4 != 1.04 (typo), plus I seriously doubt this works via a hint because > unstable has 1.05. But the 1.04 sources are in the database, so it can > be done by an ftp team member. Ok.. > > > e2fsprogs: udeb's are from 1.35-8, but in sarge is 1.35-6 > > > Suggested resolution: upload a 1.35-8sarge1 to > > > testing-proposed-updates, which is a version-only change w.r.t. > > > 1.35-8 > > > Backup resolution: get 1.35-8 unchanged as it used to be in unstable > > > into sarge (but this is slightly hacky, so not preferred from ftp > > > team perspective) > > > > agreed. > > So you agree with the suggested resolution, right? Who will upload that? > I could do it, but I cannot test the udeb's of e2fsprogs, only the > .deb's before upload (although I don't expect problems with an > no-changes upload). It's fairly hard to test such a udeb with any depth before upload. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature