Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11
- To: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
- Cc: 724306@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#724306: Bug #724306: pu: package dpkg/1.16.11
- From: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 06:11:50 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20131001041149.GA4670@gaara.hadrons.org>
- Reply-to: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>, 724306@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <1380563835.29203.11.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
- References: <20130923151649.GA22094@gaara.hadrons.org> <1380048436.17826.13.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> <20130926024640.GA4893@gaara.hadrons.org> <1380170250.30209.58.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> <20130928034752.GA13399@gaara.hadrons.org> <1380352409.22427.11.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> <20130930145949.GA17296@gaara.hadrons.org> <1380563835.29203.11.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:57:15 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 16:59 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > Thanks, unfortunately 724949 just came in a day after the upload, it
> > involves improper caching of the «dpkg --print-architecture» and
> > «gcc -dumpmachine» output, affecting the performance of wanna-build.
> > This was already fixed in 1.17.0, so it has been tested for a while.
> >
> > I was wondering if you'd be fine with a quick 1.16.12 upload, with the
> > attached diff?
>
> Yes, that looks okay.
Thanks, uploaded.
> > (Just for future reference, would you have preferred a separate bug
> > report?)
>
> Where the changes are distinct from those in the original report,
> separate bug are definitely preferable; so in this case, yes.
Ok, sorry then, will do that next time.
Regards,
Guillem
Reply to: