On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 20:21 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 14:26 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: > > "Adam D. Barratt" <[email protected]> writes: > > > It looks like this issue still affects the unstable package; is that > > > correct? If so then it should be resolved there first, before we > > > consider a tpu. > > That is correct. I will NMU 2.92-2 in unstable soon. > > That appears to have turned in to 2.92+dfsg1-0.1? [...] > > Well, the version in unstable has changes (e.g. hardening directives) > > which I presume will not be accepted in a subsequent unblock request. > > > > Adam: Does that match your opinion? Or do you prefer an unblock request > > instead? > > I'd prefer the tpu at this point.
Ping? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
