Quoting Sebastian Ramacher (2025-05-19 00:13:13) > On 2025-05-12 11:47:23 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Hi Graham, > > > > Would be helpful if you could have a look at bug#1104206. > > > > Damage of requiring a binNMU is already done, and reverting to older > > release will only miss a few bugfixes and look ugly and cost more time. > > The purpose of splitting the source into multiple packages was done to > > *simplify* transitions, not complicate them. > > > > The binNMUs are all against *virtually the same* source package, as > > Alexandre have already pointed out, so I fail to see how that can be a > > dramatically risky affair to relink the code against itself. > > > > It seems that Sebastian raising concerns about unreliable API resolving > > by the uWSGI source upstream is an issue independent of this binNMU > > request. > > I have scheduled the binNMUS now so that reverse dependencies get their > piuparts tests unstuck. Please be aware that uwsgi is a key package so > it will need an unblock request to migrate.
Thanks! I was unaware that it is a key package - that certainly changes the equation, and I apologize for my late upload. How can I see which packages are key packages? Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
