Re: stable-proposed-updates: considering cpufrequtils
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 13:20 +0900, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> just finished giving it a go on a squeeze virtual machine (yay for
> national holidays!!).
> loadcpufreq (the one with all the changes mentioned above) obviously
> cannot detect a supported cpu but all the changed code is executed fine.
> Attached a verbose log of the execution.
>
> cpufrequtils (007-2+squeeze1) stable; urgency=low
The version for stable needs to be lower than the version in testing -
convention would be -1+squeeze1 (or -2~squeeze1 at a push).
With that change, please go ahead; thanks.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: