Andreas Beckmann, 2013-02-16 12:03:01 +0100 : [...]
> The fusionforge packages are not really in a good shape for automated > testing (e.g. #678025, #662897) ... and I never used fusionforge > myself, so I don't know how to properly test it manually. Therefore > I'm a bit reluctant to NMU fusionforge without having a positive > comment on the patch by the maintainer. Thank you for looking into this; I must confess I'm slacking in my duty as a maintainer of the fusionforge packages these days. The patch looks good to me, and I'd appreciate the NMU, please. > Could the new version suffix "+squeeze1" break something? I don't think so; there's a bit of code that handles Debian version numbers, but it takes care to delegate version comparison to dpkg, so we should be safe. > But after having run piuparts install and upgrade tests on the patched > packages (that takes some time for fusionforge ...) I can now confirm that > * there are no previously unseen installation or upgrade errors > * the file conflict is solved by unpacking gforge-common before > gforge-web-apache2 Thanks again! Roland. -- Roland Mas La tradition orale, c'est comme un vieux fromage [...] -- Le Blaire -- Signatures à collectionner, série n°2, partie 1/3. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
