On (23/08/06 18:58), Bastian Blank wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 04:05:49PM +0100, James Westby wrote: > > Can I ask how this should have been handled, as the two packages provide > > the same files, but a security bug prompted an API change, hence the new > > package? > > Why is this package important at all? It barely fullfills the > conditions.
I'm not sure it should be. The source package is Priority: Important, and there is no Priority: for the binary package. Maybe we should change this on the next upload. > > > Is it satisfactory for this bug to wait and be resolved by the removal > > of -2? > > If you are going to request removal now, it is okay. The problem that > debootstrap only supports that as it simply discards it and cdebootstrap > choke on it. We ant to request removal ASAP, however, there are 4 packages with binary dependencies, and so require a binNMU. Two of these require a sourceful upload however as they are not binNMU safe. Andreas has been pushing this transition along, but he is away until the end of the month, and so it has stalled a little. James -- James Westby -- GPG Key ID: B577FE13 -- http://jameswestby.net/ seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!>|&7U.L#9E)Tu)T0>AM - secp256r1/nistp256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
