Is there a way I could get some guidance on this?
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:14:24AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> Before I go off and upload a new package to unstable, I wanted to ask if
> a new upstream release could be unblocked if it is purely documentation
> changes (or nearly so)?
>
> There was a new release of shorewall-{doc,shell,perl,common,lite} last
> night (version 4.0.14). Although 4.0.13 is in Lenny (and was planned by
> upstream to be the last release of the 4.0 branch) there were two
> significant fixes since 4.0.13, along with a whole raft of documentation
> updates, and upstream felt that a new release was necessary.
>
> The changes amount to:
> - documentation (lots of fixes)
> - fix handling of 'all-' in shorewall-shell's handling of rules
> - fix bashism in init script (affects shorewall-{common,lite})
>
> The handling of 'all-' is already in Lenny via 4.0.13-2, which was
> previously approved:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/09/msg00486.html
>
> At this point, my options are to patch both -common and -lite to fix the
> init script bashism, or to just upload the new upstream releases.
> Personally, I'd like to do the new upstream releases for these reasons:
>
> - Makes it easier from upstream (of which I am a part) support
> perspective
> - Makes it easier for users to know that they have the "latest stable"
> Shorewall
>
> Please let me know what details I would need to provide or if I can go
> ahead and upload.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
>
> --
> Roberto C. Sánchez
> http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
> http://www.connexer.com
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature