Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4

2015-05-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + pending On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 12:56 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 12:53 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: If you were referring to whether to take the backport route or adding the patch, then either is fine as long as the version number makes sense

Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4

2015-05-10 Thread Kenneth Pronovici
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 12:53 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: If you were referring to whether to take the backport route or adding the patch, then either is fine as long as the version number makes sense for the approach taken. I've attached a patch for 4.7l-3+deb8u1, which I built and

Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4

2015-05-09 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:17 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: In April of 2013 (version 4.7j-7), I converted cproto to debhelper 7. In the process, I accidentally lost the only option I was passing to configure (--enable-llib). As a result, I disabled the -X

Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4

2015-05-09 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 10:15 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: On May 9, 2015 4:57 AM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:17 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: In April of 2013 (version 4.7j-7), I converted cproto to

Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4

2015-05-09 Thread Kenneth Pronovici
On May 9, 2015 4:57 AM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:17 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: In April of 2013 (version 4.7j-7), I converted cproto to debhelper 7. In the process, I accidentally lost the only option I was

Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4

2015-05-09 Thread Kenneth Pronovici
The diff for -3+deb8u1 would be; -4~deb8u1 would include an extra changelog stanza (as it would have -4's and then -4~deb8u1's). I haven't prepared the jessie-specific package yet, because I wasn't sure it was worthwhile... I can rebuild against jessie or unstable, whichever you prefer.

Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4

2015-05-09 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Control: tags -1 -moreinfo +confirmed On Sat, 2015-05-09 at 12:53 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici wrote: If you were referring to whether to take the backport route or adding the patch, then either is fine as long as the version number makes sense for the approach taken. I've attached a patch

Bug#784801: jessie-pu: package cproto/4.7l-4

2015-05-08 Thread Kenneth Pronovici
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: jessie User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu Hi, I am requesting permission to fix a functional regression in cproto with an upload to proposed-updates-new for jessie. This may or may not meet the criteria of a truly