On 20/02/16 16:39, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 13:25:33 +0000, Andy Simpkins wrote: >> Dear Martin, >> >> You have marked the suggested move from format 1 to format 3 as "won't >> fix",. >> As part of the Cambridge BSP JMW has uploaded a fix for #799702, this >> would not have arisen had ed been using format 3 packaging. >> Is there a specific reason for not moving to format 3, or should we >> apply this move as well? > is there a reason that does not allow to stay with package format > version 1? i would like to stay with version 1 with this package? > > Beside that, all my packages are on low-NMU except ed. I would like to > have seen that respected or at least a delay-3 upload. > > Thanks, > Martin
Martin, Many thanks for the fast response. That adds the context I was looking for. I'll leave the bug report alone. Best regards, /Andy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
