Guus Sliepen wrote: > It already got a new soname, 28, but since it is a "pre" version things > can still change. Maybe I shouldn't have packaged pre versions of > upstream's software... on the other hand this is unstable. What do you > suggest, should I notify the developers of all the packages that depend > on libiw28 that they should recompile?
Well there arn't that many. I don't feel that tracking the pre was worth the pain in this case, at least on the d-i side. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
