Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-26 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Jonathan Wiltshire (2017-02-26): > Needs approval from d-i RM. Debdiff: > > > diff -Nru wpa-2.5-2+v2.4/debian/changelog wpa-2.4/debian/changelog > > --- wpa-2.5-2+v2.4/debian/changelog 2016-09-14 11:11:05.0 +0200 > > +++ wpa-2.4/debian/changelog2017-02-20

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-26 Thread Jonathan Wiltshire
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:08:51PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > On 20/02/17 08:18, Andrew Shadura wrote: > >> Please upload a targeted fix to unstable. > > I have thought about this a bit more. Even though I don't really like > the epoch idea, it's an opportunity to clean up the package version

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-20 Thread Ivo De Decker
Control: tags -1 confirmed Hi Andrew, On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:08:51PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > On 20/02/17 08:18, Andrew Shadura wrote: > >> Please upload a targeted fix to unstable. > > I have thought about this a bit more. Even though I don't really like > the epoch idea, it's an

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-20 Thread Andrew Shadura
On 20/02/17 08:18, Andrew Shadura wrote: >> Please upload a targeted fix to unstable. I have thought about this a bit more. Even though I don't really like the epoch idea, it's an opportunity to clean up the package version a bit (1:2.4-1 instead of 2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1, or even 2:2.4-1 to

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-19 Thread Andrew Shadura
On 20/02/17 00:08, Ivo De Decker wrote: > We really, really want to avoid going through t-p-u if at all possible. In > this case, there doesn't seem to be a real issue with doing a revert in > unstable. There isn't really any point in having a version in unstable that > isn't meant for testing.

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-19 Thread Ivo De Decker
Hi Andrew, On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 11:33:32PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 05:25:42PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > > Please unblock package wpa. > > This fix has to go through testing-proposed-updates. > > Why? Is there any reason you can't just revert the

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-19 Thread Andrew Shadura
On 19 Feb 2017 23:15, "Ivo De Decker" wrote: Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Andrew, On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 05:25:42PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Please unblock package wpa. > This fix has to go through testing-proposed-updates. Why? Is there any reason you can't just

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-19 Thread Ivo De Decker
Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Andrew, On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 05:25:42PM +0100, Andrew Shadura wrote: > Please unblock package wpa. > This fix has to go through testing-proposed-updates. Why? Is there any reason you can't just revert the version in unstable? That way we don't have to push a new

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-14 Thread Andrew Shadura
On 14/02/17 17:25, Andrew Shadura wrote: > This fix has to go through testing-proposed-updates. > > Thanks for considering. > > unblock wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1 Sorry, the debdiff I attached was made against a never released version of the package (differing only in the version number).

Bug#855143: unblock: wpa/2.5-2+v2.4-4stretch1

2017-02-14 Thread Andrew Shadura
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: unblock -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Please unblock package wpa. wpa-supplicant 2.6 brought some regressions making it unfit for stretch, so I decided to keep 2.4 in testing.