Hi Adam, On Samstag, 5. Oktober 2013, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > > So to be (crystal) clear: we should reupload slbackup with those > > > > NACKed changes removed?! > > > I'm arguing with myself a little over that one, in the "should we just > > > cover it under 'only -edu probably use it'" general sort of area. > > :-) I'm curious for the result of this arguing! :) > Me too :) *g* > Okay. If you're happy that leaving it in the recommends doesn't cause > you any issues (at least for the package in the main archive rather than > the -edu one) then I'll leave that up to you. Well, I'm thinking of uploading the package with that change, so that the recommends goes away... > > Which brings me back to my initial question whether we should reupload > > these packages to wheezy(-proposed updates) with ~deb7u1 added to the > > version number? > I was going to say "go ahead with the packages we didn't have queries > on" but I've just noticed in the -edu changelog that it adds a > dependency on the new package from -config. :( right. Besides that this is something not done before, are there any (known) technical reasons against it? I really can't see any, especially as new kernel or xulrunner packages do introduce new source+binary packages.. > I realise it's not entirely the answer you were looking for, but I'd be > happy for you to upload -artwork, -doc, -install and sitesummary > already. ok, cool! Will do so. Just another question: ~deb7u1 will cause the version number to be lower than in sid and jessie, but also lower than what we have in Edu Wheezy currently. OTOH, +deb7u1 will cause the version to be higher than in sid+jessie. Do you have any idea how to solve that, short of doing dummy uploads to sid too? I tend to lean on using ~deb7u1 and ignore the Edu archives "perspective"... cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.