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

Darcs to unstable? (was Re: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] darcs_2.7.99.1-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental)


On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 07:49:04PM +0000, Debian FTP Masters wrote:
> Accepted:
> […]
> darcs_2.7.99.1-1_amd64.deb
>   to main/d/darcs/darcs_2.7.99.1-1_amd64.deb

I uploaded the new Darcs RC to experimental, but I'm now wondering if we
shouldn't just put it in unstable directly? I've been using it for a bit
and it seems pretty stable, and importantly it doesn't FTBFS (or have
broken filename encoding handling if monkey-patched).

Upstream aims to have 2.8 out in May, which would be in time for our

WDYT? Perhaps the rest of you could  give this version a go for a few
days and if all cats/children remain unharmed then upload to unstable?


Iain Lane                                  [ iain@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer                                   [ laney@debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer                                   [ laney@ubuntu.com ]
PhD student                                       [ ial@cs.nott.ac.uk ]

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: