Hi,
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 02:56:18PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:07:53PM +0100, Sebastian Harl wrote:
> > So, the question is how I'm supposed to handle this case. Build-
> > depending on the latest version of libupsclient1-dev is not an option as
> > collectd won't be able to migrate to Lenny then (afaik that libupsclient
> > version is not a candidate for Lenny). Should I upload to tpu instead or
> > take the risk that some buildd might be slightly outdated?
>
> As long as it does not pick up a stricter dep on nut than the version in
> testing it should be fine. I can't see shlibs changes in the changelog
> so a proper upload should work.
Yep, that's not going to be a problem.
> The package should not be outdated on the buildds, so you should take
> the risk.
Okay, thanks. The package has been uploaded to unstable now with the
following changes:
collectd (4.4.2-3) unstable; urgency=low
* New debconf template translation:
- nl.po, thanks to Eric Spreen (Closes: #502204).
- sv.po, thanks to Martin Bagge (Closes: #504248).
* debian/patches:
- Added pod-errors.dpatch to fix some minor POD errors.
* debian/rules:
- Remove generated manpages in the clean target to avoid cluttering the
source diff with the rebuilt manpages.
* debian/collectd.conf:
- Fixed a wrong type used in the "tail" plugin example.
So, this only touches translations and documentation. It would be nice
if you would unblock collectd-4.4.2-3.
TIA,
Sebastian
--
Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature