Dear Paul,
> I try to always assume good faith :), so it's close to what I suspected
> to be the case.
… and to take this a level deeper, I also assumed you would assume
good faith as well. :) I guess I was being explicit as a way of
clumsily segueing into my "frenzy of post-Buster release motivation"
excuse.
> Either the [..] best way forward is to upload a
> 2:2.2.3+really1:1.11.22-1 package [..] or trust that it can wait
> until the time we allow for this transition.
Indeed. Unfortunately, I have an instictive gut reaction against the
former so I'm afraid I will have to disappoint you once again in this
area by falling back to the latter approach against your preference.
> for the latter approach it's crucial to inform your reverse (test)
> dependencies
Do you have a convenient script that will generate a list of these? I
can generate a list of regular reverse-dependencies but I fear I would
be missing the test ones. Or: if someone could furnish me with such a
list I will happily file the bugs in question.
Thanks again for your patience and understanding here, Paul.
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
