On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:02:43AM +0100, Enrico Tassi wrote: > I've just uploaded a new version to unstable that restores a missing > file that prevents the correct loading of firmware and reverts a patch > taken from Ubuntu that made firmware loading impossible.
It also adds patches to the source that isn't listed in debian/patches/00list at all, and in general includes lots of changes that are not adequately documented in the changelog. I can't review this package to tell whether it's ok if I can't understand what the changes are supposed to be for, sorry. Ironically, the "new upstream version" part of this is reasonably small and easily permitted. > The frozen version 0.2.5-2 is really close to the one in unstable > 0.2.6+svn20061108-1 that essentially adds a > small patch to make it more network/interfaces friendly (so that you can > use the gnome-network-*) Please explain which change this is in the source and how it makes it more friendly. > and compilation fixes for kernel 2.6.19. Irrelevant for etch. > Version 0.2.5-2 manifests only the first problem (missing file) and > since etch will be 2.6.18 the compilation fixes added in 0.2.6+ will be > useless. Anyway, the better compatibility with the gnome stuff makes me > think that it would be better to let 0.2.6+svn20061108-2 enter etch, > instead of providing a minimal fix against 0.2.5. If you can account for the changes in the unstable version it's possible, but I suspect that it would be easier after all to make a targetted upload to testing-proposed-updates (if the proposed changes are appropriate for t-p-u -- I don't think I understand yet which part of the changeset is relevant to your request). Thanks, -- 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]
