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

Re: Debconf or not debconf : Conclusion



On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:18:10AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > What do you propose ?
> > > Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for
> > > compatibility
> >
> > Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incompetent and have
> > decided to gratuitously break compatibility, that sounds like a good idea.
> >
> > > and do not include new version ?
> >
> > Why wouldn't you include the new version as well?
> 
> Yes, keep the two versions of stunnel is probably the right way to handle this 
> problem. Now the problem is that stunnel is uploaded in version 4 on stunnel 
> package. What is the correct way to reintroduce stunnel for compatibility 
> reasons ? uploading a new  stunnel3 package will not resolve the problem.

Epoch it and upload stunnel4 as a new package.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

Attachment: pgpf3HKMBTa3E.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: