* Rene Engelhard (rene@debian.org) wrote: > On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 05:20:51PM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote: > > * Rene Engelhard (rene@debian.org) wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 02:42:15AM -0500, Eric Dorland wrote: > > > > I've prepared an NMU for hunspell (versioned as 1.3.2-6.1) and > > > > uploaded it to DELAYED/10. > > > > > > NMUing for a wishlist bug??? > > > > I've been publishing my plans to debian-devel (see the link in the > > original bug report), and there weren't any objections there to the > > plan. > > And -devel is not a must-read (and too time-consuiming). Sure, but it is the prescribed forum for discussing these mass bug filings and the thread is linked from the bug. > > > > Please feel free to tell me if I should delay it longer. > > > > > > Yes, please. inedefinitely. (Or until is is at least important/RC) > > > > So the reason it's wishlist right now is that automake1.9 is still in > > the archive. I can cancel this NMU and wait until automake1.9 is > > Please do. (Doesn't really mater, though, see below) > > > removed, upgrade the bug severity to serious and then upload an NMU, > > but that seems like a worse order of operations since it leaves > > hunspell in a FTBFS state for some amount of time. > > Then you don't need a NMU because I'd do it then (I hope). Sure, but I think needlessly introducing FTBFS bugs is frowned upon by the release team. > Besides that, 99_build_stuff,dpatch actualy is not used so I'll just > do a uploading removing that and the build-depends and migrating the whole > thing away from dpatch... Well that would be perfect, thanks! -- Eric Dorland <eric@kuroneko.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature