[ resend, I just saw even -release and -openoffice were in the mail... ] Hi, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > I noticed that the latest OpenOffice.org security update in Etch > (version 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1, which fixed DSA 1307) depends on libneon25 > whereas the previous Etch version (2.0.4.dfsg.2-5etch1) depended instead > on libneon26. Are changes in the depended package names, which require > a dist-upgrade, in security updates considered a bug? If so, should I No. Because the change to libneon25 would have been done anywa in etch r1. See -5etch2 in proposed-updates. If you compare to the version which is already approved and accepted for etch1, there's no dependency change.. Actually, -7 was planned to be in etch r1 but as aj doesn't copy it over rom testing.. > bother filing it? No. Normal. Gr�gards, Ren�- .''`. Ren�ngelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature