On Jan 30, 2008 11:07 AM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2008 8:33 AM, Jan de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > > Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:arch-dev-public- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Dan McGee > > > Verzonden: woensdag 30 januari 2008 15:08 > > > Aan: Public mailing list for ArchLinux development > > > Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] bash 3.2.033-2 and > > > filesystem 2007.11-6 > > > > > > > > > > > http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2008-January/016696.html > > > > Should we consider /etc/issue not being in backup array as a bug? > > > > Or this file should be added to NoUpgrade by user? > > > > > > I see no reason why this should be backed up. There is nothing there > > > for the user to modify in a normal situation, and I guess 99% of users > > > would want it overwritten. Seems like a good NoUpgrade candidate to > > > me. > > > > As it is in /etc, it is a configuration file. As 99% of the users don't > > change it, 99% > > of those users won't see a .pacnew file whenever we change the file. For > > the 1% > > of the users that changes the configuration file, this file should be in > > backup. > > Jan's is correct here, BUT /etc/issue has never been in the backup > array as far as I can tell, so it is not a regression. Let's do the > following: Sign off on this one so we can get it out the door and fix > the REAL issues. New ISOs are coming soon, so we will need to bump > this package anyway. We can add that then
Signoff both packages, i686. -Dan
