On 20/02/17 00:08, Ivo De Decker wrote: > We really, really want to avoid going through t-p-u if at all possible. In > this case, there doesn't seem to be a real issue with doing a revert in > unstable. There isn't really any point in having a version in unstable that > isn't meant for testing. The 2.6 version can go to experimental.
It was meant for testing, but unfortunately the issues with it turned out to be more serious than I thought, which is why I decided to stick with an older version for now. > As for the confusion, this can be avoided by using an epoch instead > of the version you're using now (but that is really your call). It was already in experimental, and it went to unstable at the point when it seemed it had enough of testing, but it turned out it didn't. As for the epoch, I'm not sure it's a good idea, as the package already uses it in a bit inconsistent way (for one of the binary packages only). On the other hand, all fixes I'm including are backports of fixes included in the version currently in unstable. > Please upload a targeted fix to unstable. -- Cheers, Andrew
