Hi Adam, "Adam D. Barratt" <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes: > I wasn't particularly suggesting re-introducing 3.0 to unstable. > However, given that packages from tpu get essentially no testing at all > (no pun intended) before hitting testing, being able to prove a patch in > unstable first avoids a number of (admittedly not all) potential > issues. Now I understand what your point was, thanks for clarifying.
> Looking at the proposed tpu diff and the 3.0 -> 3.1 diff, it looks like > the armhf changes should apply "as is" to 3.1; has anyone tried that? I have ported the patches from 3.0 to 3.1 and successfully built the package on amd64, where it works. Therefore, I will now build it on armhf, which will take around a day. Sylvestre: Are you okay with me NMUing clang 3.1-8.1 to unstable in order to expose my changes to a wider audience before we do the fix via t-p-u? -- Best regards, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
