Bug#520753: Potential serious bug on ghostscript-cups
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:
> On 12-07-29 at 09:04pm, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> Le dimanche, 29 juillet 2012 18.03:16, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>> > > > For Wheezy we should probably aim for the uglier but much
>> > > > simpler solution. the "master" branch is not intended for
>> > > > Wheezy, I will use a separate "master-wheezy" for that.
>> > >
>> > > I think I disagree. The patch I propose makes ghostscript-cups
>> > > rely on cups' postinst which is already proven working by more
>> > > than 14 packages, all of them already in Wheezy. I think this is a
>> > > patch the Release Team can accept and a patch that makes Wheezy a
>> > > better release by reducing useless code duplication in maintainer
>> > > scripts.
>> >
>> > Oh, ok.
>> >
>> > Would you mind file the bugreport requesting freeze exception, when
>> > I have uploaded it to unstable? I am quite lousy at arguing such
>> > cases for the Release Managers :-/
>>
>> Which other changes do you plan to include towards Wheezy? I can argue
>> for that one, but would have hard time for others (as I have mostly no
>> clue about ghostscript). But sure, I can file the bug and argue for it
>> in front of the Release Team.
>
> I have no other changes planned targeted Wheezy. I dare not include any
> non-RC bugfixes, and would also prefer the previously proposed two-line
> patch for this one to keep burden of Release Managers to a minimum.
> That's why I request that you do the talking when insisting on the more
> elegant but also larger fix.
Could you include patch for bug#682407 ?
Thanks
bastien
> If anyone disagrees and want more changes included for Wheezy, now is
> the time (I'll wait another day to prepare the package).
>
>
> - Jonas
>
> --
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Reply to: