On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 12:22 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Samstag, 5. Oktober 2013, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > 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..
It's basically in the "new packages really don't count as minimal changes" column, so it just depends how far we want to stretch the -edu exception. (The kernel and xulrunner do periodically introduce new binary packages indeed - although xulrunner's only /just/ done so for the first time iirc - but I don't think either of them's ever involved a new source package. There has been one new source introduced in to stable (via -security) that I can think of, which was openssh-blacklist). > > 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. Thanks. > 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"... I don't have any great ideas on how to solve that one, I'm afraid. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
