Jordi wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:41:32AM +0200, Michael Piefel wrote: >> Well, that package is quite OK and surely with minimal changes. > > I can upload tonight if finally my ADSL link is working. > >> What I would greatly prefer, however, is for the 2.2.7-2 version to go >> in. I know it is a new upstream version, but it fixes dozens of bugs not >> yet reported, and since no package at all depends on pound I cannot see >> any harm done. Regression is also impossible, since 2.0-1.1 is so badly >> broken. > > Me too; I am personally going to use/am using pound 2.2.7 from unstable > in my production servers, but if 2.2.7 is unacceptable for etch, I think > at the very least, we need to fix those two bugs in etch. > > Release team, is there *any* chance of letting the unstable version in? > In my experience, it'd be a lot better than the NMU, but I would > understand not going this route on April 3rd. Sorry, the version in unstable is not acceptable at this stage of the release preparations. We will probably also not consider an upload to testing-proposed-updates at this stage of the release preparations as we are only considering RC bug fixes anymore. Note that it might be a good idea to try to get in the first point release of etch... Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature