Hi Adam, On Samstag, 5. Oktober 2013, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > > So to be (crystal) clear: we should reupload slbackup with those > > > > NACKed changes removed?! > > > I'm arguing with myself a little over that one, in the "should we just > > > cover it under 'only -edu probably use it'" general sort of area. > > :-) I'm curious for the result of this arguing! :) > Me too :)
*g*
> Okay. If you're happy that leaving it in the recommends doesn't cause
> you any issues (at least for the package in the main archive rather than
> the -edu one) then I'll leave that up to you.
Well, I'm thinking of uploading the package with that change, so that the
recommends goes away...
> > Which brings me back to my initial question whether we should reupload
> > these packages to wheezy(-proposed updates) with ~deb7u1 added to the
> > version number?
> I was going to say "go ahead with the packages we didn't have queries
> on" but I've just noticed in the -edu changelog that it adds a
> dependency on the new package from -config. :(
right.
Besides that this is something not done before, are there any (known)
technical reasons against it? I really can't see any, especially as new kernel
or xulrunner packages do introduce new source+binary packages..
> I realise it's not entirely the answer you were looking for, but I'd be
> happy for you to upload -artwork, -doc, -install and sitesummary
> already.
ok, cool! Will do so.
Just another question: ~deb7u1 will cause the version number to be lower than
in sid and jessie, but also lower than what we have in Edu Wheezy currently.
OTOH, +deb7u1 will cause the version to be higher than in sid+jessie.
Do you have any idea how to solve that, short of doing dummy uploads to sid
too? I tend to lean on using ~deb7u1 and ignore the Edu archives
"perspective"...
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
