On 06/03/2014 15:12, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Looking at 05_wipe_otherfs.patch in both versions, it looks like v9 > could easily be fixed in the same way? If so, why not do that?
Fine with me, though I got no time to take care of 9.x branch. I barely keep up with 10.0-related work... > Staying at kfreebsd 9 for the jessie alpha 1 images looks like a nice > idea (even more so if they also manage to create UFS file systems), > so that there's a reference image to check possible regressions (when > switching to kfreebsd 10) against. Yeah, makes sense. Feel free to NMU if you will. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
