This one time, at band camp, Matus UHLAR - fantomas said: > On 06.06.06 17:28, Stephen Gran wrote: > > Yes, SA 3.1 is in unstable, we should really think about including it in > > volatile (at least IMHO). Aba, zobel - any thoughts? > > no, according to last rule on http://volatile.debian.net/: > > # the upgrade path from volatile to the next stable release needs to be at > least as easy as from the current stable release; means e.g. that the > version in volatile must not be higher than in testing It only just got uploaded to unstable a day or so ago, so I agree we have to wait and give it time to migrate to testing. We could just go with 3.1.1 (the version in testing), but I see no reason why it wouldn't be better to wait a few days until it makes it in. It will likely take that long to coordinate an upload with the maintainer anyway, and get it autobuilt for all architectures. I will write the maintainers and see how they feel. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature