Thanks! Do you mind listing the exact binary package list which should then be promoted?
I would have appreciated the simple nitpick to be fixed while you were fixing the other issues, but as said, not a requirement… Agreed with you on the autopkgtests. This could have helped if vala were to regressed the lib build, but unsure this is really needed as a separate autopkgtests. So, +1 for me, the security team should feel free to have a look at this one. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to gssdp in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1799977 Title: [MIR] gssdp Status in gssdp package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: * Availability Builds on all supported architectures in Ubuntu and on sync from Debian, the package was in main in the past and needs to be re- promoted * Rationale We would like to enable dlna sharing of media files, which is a GNOME upstream feature and relying on gssdp * Security No CVE/known security issue * Quality assurance - the desktop-packages team is subscribed to the package - the bug lists in upstream, the Debian PTS and launchpad are empty - upstream has a testsuit which is being used during build * Dependendies The package dependencies are in main * Standards compliance the package is using standard packaging (dh11), the standards-version is 4.1.1, the package is in sync from Debian * Maintainance Upstream is active and the desktop team is going to look after the package in ubuntu To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gssdp/+bug/1799977/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp