Re: iasl (acpica-unix) 20060912-4 to unstable or experimental (or nothing)?
* Mattia Dongili (email@example.com) [070114 14:39]:
> aba (Cc-ed) followed the issue. So basically -4 fixes some forced FTBFS
> due to bugs in the iasl code generation and load/store unaligned
> accesses (#406034 and #406558) as a followup to #401153.
> Now, is it worth trying to push for -4 in etch? the only package
> build-depending on iasl is qemu which already includes workarounds so
> maybe -4 can wait (and never appear as there's a new upstream release
I don't consider -4 as "required for release", but of course adding more
architectures that actually work is a good thing (and thanks to the
testcase we'll notice if something goes wrong). So, in the end it's the
maintainers decision, nothing special from the release team.