Jordà Polo <jo...@ettin.org> writes: > I should have committed it before, but I was still waiting for a reply > to the LAB_FORMAT bump question. (I had a commit ready to be pushed, but > I was too lazy to look into the code and confirm it was actually > needed.)
Oh, sorry, I was going to look at that and then completely forgot about it. Unfortunately, I never recorded my intention anywhere, which means that things get lost too easily. > At a glance, it looks like increasing it would have been a good idea > since info/*-packages aren't regenerated. Fortunately, it shouldn't be a > problem with a fresh run, but I suppose it should be fixed even it if is > in the next version. > > Sorry about that. Looking it over, no, I think it's fine. As near as I can tell, the lab format is only about the files created in the laboratory directories per package, not about the package lists. The package list format is handled entirely via the bits you did change. Since this change didn't affect any of the collect scripts or anything that was written out to the laboratory directories, I don't think there's a reason to increase that format. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
