Hi,
On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 01:58:32PM -0800, Christoph Egger wrote:
> intrigeri <intrig...@debian.org> writes:
> > Michael Meskes wrote (27 Dec 2012 11:21:56 GMT) :
> >>> > Would it be possible to get *only* the xfs fix in testing instead of the
> >>> > whole new release?
> >
> >> Where does fixing the XFS problem differ from fixing the other bugs
> >> in 4.01?
> >
> > As I understand it (and not being a member of the release team), it
> > differs because that one has been reported in Debian as the #685356
> > important bug, while the others have not. At this time of the freeze,
> > including a new upstream release because it fixes a lot of more or
> > less important bugs (and adds a few features..) is probably not an
> > option. I guess that's exactly why Salvatore prepared a minimal
> > t-p-u debdiff.
> >
> > But well, if you feel like every change in 4.01 satisfies the current
> > freeze policy and should be fixed in Wheezy, then please feel free to
> > explain why :)
> >
> >> Anyway, we can surely do a Wheezy version of 4.00 that fixes XFS.
> >
> > OK. Do you ACK Salvatore's proposed t-p-u debdiff?
>
> Hm could we maybe add 8b6ce13e1b196cb9d0cc5b24dfc75c97a9eb883d (upstream
> git) as well?
> Seems to be the one addressing (at least the second half of)
> #698864. Cc-ed the folks there to check the fixed quota 4.00 binary they
> deployed is actually using this patch.
Yes, that's exactly the patch we're using.
It fixes our problems described in #698864.
Regards
Simon
--
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/20130304093232.gb5...@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
