On Thu, 2013-10-03 at 23:06 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > On 03/10/13 22:17, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > Does this affect unstable? If so, please update the BTS accordingy, get > > the fix there, and revisit the pu bug afterwards. > > The change (dropping 101_nullfs_vsock.diff) was already made back in > 9.1-1, and so I've updated the BTS accordingly. I agree that detail is > missing from the changelog, as it was hard even for me to determine this > just now.
Thanks. > I wonder if we have an opportunity to fix the non-standard version > numbering we have at the moment, perhaps by calling this pu something > like 9.0-12+deb7u1 instead (because changes from 9.0-11 and -12 are > already incorporated in this)? Or if it is less confusing to stay with > what we have? If you were to do something like that, a changelog entry would be helpful in order to reduce confusion. > > Why this version number? security seems to only have 9.0-10+deb70.3 > > There is a 9.0-10+deb70.4 upload in Secre^WSecurity Team's queue since > 23 days ago but I've no idea the status if this. [rt.debian.org #4671] In that case, the status of that package needs clarifying. Releasing .5 via p-u if .4 is then going to appear via security doesn't really work. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
