On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > I hope we could leave it as that for the upload - nobody has a time > machine to undo the upload, but we could try to make it better now and > discuss where we should go.
Ok, let's focus on libjpeg-progs, since I do not think there is a disagreement about it. What would you propose as a course of action that allow either libjpeg8 or lijpeg9 to provide libjpeg-progs with minimal disruption to the archive ? While libjpeg-progs 1:1.3.1-4 does not build libjpeg-progs, rmadison libjpeg-progs still report libjpeg-progs | 8d-1+deb7u1 | wheezy | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc libjpeg-progs | 1:1.3.1-3 | jessie | all libjpeg-progs | 1:1.3.1-3 | sid | all Thus somehow the offending binary package has not been removed from the archive. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
