On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:04:31PM -0800, Aaron Read wrote: > There is a #235407 against the 'sml-nj' source package, should I > file one against the binary package as well? That should be sufficient, I think. > > Er, you don't *have* to always upload the newest upstream version? > I'm a little confused by the question mark. I would like to provide > users with current packages, but I would rather have a newer version > of the package in testing, as the quality of the packaging is much > better than in the 110.44 version. Well, you expressed concern about the testing counter resetting with each upload; merely pointing out that balancing the freshness of packages in unstable vs. testing is under maintainer control. Of course in this case, the complexity of the source/binary relationships mean it may take some time for an ftp-master to sort out sml-nj's removal. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature