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 take the risk that some buildd might be slightly outdated?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 The package should not be outdated on the buildds, so you should take 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