On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 06:16:16PM +0000, Bdale Garbee wrote: > Allowing the updated Amanda packages into etch would probably be a good > idea. I don't think there are any odd dependencies on them that are > likely to cause trouble.
What is the tar behavior change that's an issue here, and how severe is the bug resulting from it? We're looking at about a 6kloc upstream diff against testing, which is quite a bit more than I'm comfortable making an exception for. -- 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/ > From: Brad Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Bug#402221: fixed in amanda 1:2.5.1p3-1 > Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:22:28 -0800 > X-Spam-Score: -2.598 > Reply-To: Brad Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Resent-To: [email protected] > X-Debian-PR-Source: amanda > > Can we expect this update to migrate into testing soon? > > The versions of tar and amanda in testing conspire to make backups of > busy systems a problem due to tar's behavior change when it comes to > changed files. 2.5.1p3 fixes amanda to cope with this change. > > According to http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=amanda it > hasn't migrated automatically due to amanda being considered 'frozen' in > testing. It says to contact debian-release if an update is needed. I > figured that'd work better if it came from the package owner. > > Thanks, > Brad > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
