On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 02:36:47PM -0500, Stuart Anderson wrote: > I would like to ask that the following package updates be approved for > inclusion in testing/Etch.
> lsb-build-base3_3.1.1-3 > ----------------------- > This fixes #405749 which should be RC, even though I haven't raised the > priority on it. This new package also picks up a number of smaller, but > valid fixes from upstream. The issues fixed by these smaller fixes still > have a reasonable chance of biting someone when they try to use this > package. > When viewing the debdiff, there are some non-trivial looking changes in > some perl scripts. These scripts are not part of the binary packages, and > are not even used at build time (they are used by the upstream to generate > many of the file in this package), so I hope they do not become sticking > points when evaluating this package. Which bits, precisely, are ignorable as no-ops? There are quite a few whitespace changes in the headers, which are obviously no-ops but nevertheless make reviewing the diff awkward. I could maybe see unblocking this just on the grounds that this is a standards implementation, and shipping what matches upstream is important even if it introduces practical regressions for building against... > lsb-pkgchk3-3.1.1-2 > ------------------- > This is also part of the fix for #405749. The debdiff is very > straight-froward. Clear enough, unblocked. > lsb-appchk3-3.1.1-3 > ------------------- > This is also part of the fix for #405749. This part of the debdiff is > the same as for lsb-pkgchk3-3.1.1-2. In addition, it contains the fix > for RC bug #395895 (rpmchk.h) which was in the -2 package that through > some oversight, never got uploaded. Also unblocked. 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]
