Bug#699915: tpu: lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1
Hi Adam, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk writes: Ping? As discussed in IRC, I uploaded 2.92+dfsg1-0.1~deb7u1 to testing-proposed-updates. Sorry for taking so long to react on this one. -- Best regards, Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/x638vrayt6@midna.zekjur.net
Bug#699915: tpu: lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 20:21 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 14:26 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk 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 debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1363116873.6841.7.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#699915: tpu: lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1
On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 14:26 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk 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? A quick query on the proposed diff - why is the same symlink being managed both via debian/links and an ln -sf (and later rm) in debian/rules? debian/links is for the symlink which gets shipped in the resulting package, whereas I left the ln -sf/rm in debian/rules for providing the glyphlist.txt at compile time. I’m not sure if anything actually uses that, or might use it in the future, so I am playing it safe here :). Okay. David Prévot taf...@debian.org writes: Is there any reason not to push this version directly in unstable ? (2.92+dfsg1-1.1 is greater than 2.92-2 anyway). 2.92+dfsg1-0.1 might be more conventional for an initial NMU too. 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. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1362082915.32751.7.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Bug#699915: tpu: lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1
Hi, Le 06/02/2013 13:56, Michael Stapelberg a écrit : I would like to upload lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1 to testing-proposed-updates to fix #694352 in wheezy. At the moment, 2.92-1+b1 is in testing and 2.92-2 is in unstable. Is there any reason not to push this version directly in unstable ? (2.92+dfsg1-1.1 is greater than 2.92-2 anyway). 2.92+dfsg1-0.1 might be more conventional for an initial NMU too. Regards David signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#699915: tpu: lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 18:56 +0100, Michael Stapelberg wrote: I would like to upload lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1 to testing-proposed-updates to fix #694352 in wheezy. At the moment, 2.92-1+b1 is in testing and 2.92-2 is in unstable. The debdiff is attached. May I go ahead? Thanks for working on fixing this in wheezy. 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. A quick query on the proposed diff - why is the same symlink being managed both via debian/links and an ln -sf (and later rm) in debian/rules? Hmmm, actually... having compared the file currently shipped in lcdf-typetools with that from the aglfn package, the difference appears to be purely the license statement; the actual data is identical. In that case I assume Adobe haven't done anything helpful like retrospectively applied the license change? Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1360437134.7444.8.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
Processed: Re: Bug#699915: tpu: lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1
Processing control commands: tags -1 + moreinfo Bug #699915 [release.debian.org] tpu: lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 699915: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=699915 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.b699915.1360437145336.transcr...@bugs.debian.org
Bug#699915: tpu: lcdf-typetools/2.92+dfsg1-1.1
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Hmmm, actually... having compared the file currently shipped in lcdf-typetools with that from the aglfn package, the difference appears to be purely the license statement; the actual data is identical. In that case I assume Adobe haven't done anything helpful like retrospectively applied the license change? Took a look at my emails and blog post from this period, doesn't appear that they did. In any case, not duplicating the data is probably the right thing to do anyway? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6gfujtmn4rh51tve3aznaf181gbejrzfvktr87gkuq...@mail.gmail.com
