On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 07:47:11PM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 02:19:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 07:06:00PM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> > > I need a quick suggestion how to handle libcpufreq{0,-dev} within the
> > > libsysfs transition.
> > > Facts:
> > > - current cpufrequtils is compatible with both libsysfs1 and libsysfs2
> > > - the source package depends on libsysfs-dev >= 1.0.0
> > > - libcpufreq0 uses ${shlibs:Depends} to build dependencies
> > > Now, my understanding is that a binNMU is sufficient to rebuild binaries
> > > and fill the correct dependencies?
> > Looks like it to me.
> > > If so, is pinging about it debian-release@l.d.o usually sufficient to
> > > ask request the binNMU?
> > Yes.
> Ooops :)
> My mail was indended as just a "suggestion" on how to proceed, I was
> waiting the availability of libsysfs2 in sid before actually pinging
> debian-release@ for the binNMU.
> I did see that the package was rebuilt on 02/12 actually :)
> Apologies for not being clear enough...
Hmm... sloppy of me for not noticing. Well, let me know when libsysfs2
actually hits unstable then...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature