On 25.07.2012 08:41, Geert Stappers wrote:
Op 20120724 om 21:35 schreef Alexander Golovko:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:14:10 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 21:10:49 +0400, Alexander Golovko wrote:
>
}> Upstream position 5.2.x releases as bugfixes, 5.2.7 and 5.2.10 as
}> significant bugfix releases.
>> There is a debdiff between current packages and new 5.2.10, which
>> after fixing all regressions and other bugs can be uploaded:
>>
> We're interested in the source diff, not so much binary.
>
i use next command for create debdiff:
debdiff --diffstat --exclude bacula.pot --exclude '*.po' \
--exclude configure --exclude ltdl.m4 --exclude
fix-binutils-gold-linking.patch
--wdiff-source-control bacula_5.2.6+dfsg-2.dsc
bacula_5.2.10+dfsg-1.dsc > bacula-dsc-debdiff.txt
( haven't checked the debdiff output )
It doesn't sound like you're in a position to comment on its
suitability then?
FWIW from http://www.bacula.org/en/?page=news
The 5.2.10 version is a significant bug fix release
How many of those fixes fit the acceptance criteria? This:
including our first cut of AFS support.
certainly doesn't.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
