Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> writes:
>>> * bsdmainutils 6.1.5
>>> only the maintainer changed, would be nice to have it up2date in
>>> etch
>> No
> It doesn't make any sense to me to keep *knowingly* and *intentionally*
> an outdated address in a released package, especially if the debdiff is
> that trivial.
Limited time. You didn't have the time to fix the address earlier, we
don't have the time to fix that for you.
>>> * dahb-html 3.1.2.15-1
>>> this is a new upstream release of an online-book, should be
>>> no problem to hint this one in :)
>> he@ries:~$ debdiff /org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/non-free/d/dahb-html/dahb-html_3.1.2.1{4,5}*.dsc | wc -l
>> 17876
>>
>> I don't think so.
> Why? This book has updated html text pages - no code, no debian/* changes.
Because freezing means "No new upstream versions". There is a point when
we only address bugs. I don't intend to make exceptions for "some
things", because everyone will try to argue that their package needs an
exception too.
>>> ...and there are a few packages of mine where I suggest to hint them
>>> into testing...
>>>
>>> * dwm 2.6-1 and dwm-tools 4
>>> upstream has a extremous 'release often' policy, each minor fix
>>> gets a new upstream version. those fixes are simple, but important
>>> (e.g. for utf)
>>
>> No, until you show a bug.
> Does that mean that I have now to go through the upstream changelog, and
> issue 3 or 4 RC bugs against the dwm package for etch? Or do we
> knowingly ship dwm 2.1?
I've went through the upstream changelog, didn't find something really
important, asked someone using dwm as Window Manager if there were
problems and then decided that "no new upstream release" really means
"no new upstream release".
Marc
--
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
90: WWW
Interaktives Echtzeit-Herumstochern in einer Informationssuppe.
(Jochem Huhmann)
Attachment:
pgpUJUjrcBT8p.pgp
Description: PGP signature