On Wed, 2013-02-27 at 10:18 -0800, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > On 02/27/2013 05:25 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On 25.02.2013 02:41, Nikolaus Rath wrote: > >> I'd like to upload a new version of S3QL to testing-proposed-updates to > >> fix bug #701350. Unstable already contains a newer upstream release > >> (1.12), so I cannot upload there. > > > > The bug log for #701350 implies that a) it doesn't affect the version of > > s3ql in wheezy and b) it has yet to be fixed in sid. Is either or both > > of those implications correct? > > Wheezy S3QL and sid S3QL both contain the bug. Currently, the wheezy > libc seems to incidentally work around the S3QL bug. However, this does > not happen with newer libc versions, so it may well be a libc bug > canceling out the S3QL bug. Therefore, with the current wheezy S3QL, any > change to wheezy's libc puts S3QL users at the risk of data loss.
In that case, please fix the version information: Found in version s3ql/1.12-1 It also shouldn't be tagged "sid". > I have not yet uploaded a patched version for sid, because I wasn't sure > if/how this interacts with getting an update into wheezy. If you'd like > to see the change in sid first, I'd be happy to upload. But note that > sid *already* contains a newer S3QL release than wheezy. Fixing sid first is always appreciated, even where a t-p-u will be required to fix wheezy (afaict the fix would be essentially the same in each case); thanks. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
