On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 05:24:08PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > > zlib: udeb's are from 1:1.2.2-4, sarge has 1:1.2.2-3 > > > Suggested resolution: Freeze-exception for 1:1.2.2-4 > > I forget if d-i actually uses zlib udeb for anything. Given the small > > changes in -4 from -3 and the long time it's sat in unstable I agree > > this is better than a t-p-u upload. > Ok, Steve? Hinted in; the next version of zlib should go in tomorrow. (Maintainer Cc:ed.) > > > 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). If we were to pull in a new version, I don't really like the idea of it going through t-p-u because of how much e2fsprogs affects. Resurrecting a known good historical version would be ok, otherwise I believe we should be figuring out how to get the version in unstable into a viable state. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature