On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:37:05PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> My guess is that it would be better for the new package to take care of > >> it, since otherwise we're carrying around an old source package as well > >> as a transitional binary package. That seems unnecessary.
> > The only thing that scares me is the NEW processing for the transitional > > package, which would be avoided by using the old source package to > > create the transitional binary package. This is probably an irrational > > fear. :) > As I recall (and this surprised me too), if you add a transitional package > that matches the name of a binary package currently provided by another > source package, there's no NEW approval required. Indeed, so I think re-adding a libsasl2-gssapi-mit binary package to cyrus-sasl2 would be the best option. Is this in progress? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
