Hi Paul, On Sun, Nov 21, 2010, paul.sz...@sydney.edu.au wrote:
... I have backported it ... deb http://debian.jones.dk/ squeeze printingI have now upgraded a machine to squeeze and tried your ghostscript 9.00~dfsg-1~0jones1 package, it works perfectly, thanks.
Great! Thanks for the feedback!
Will this make it into squeeze? Seems not, being a backport.
8.71~dfsg2-6 is in testing, but contains RC bugs. 9.00~dfsg-1 is in experimental: Will never be part of a release. 9.00~dfsg-1~0jones1 is unofficial: Will never enter Debian.Thanks to positive feedback from you and others, I intend to release 9.00~dfsg-2 targeted unstable, and then ask the Release Team for a freeze exception to let it into testing.
So these are possible scenarios for Ghostscript in Squeeze: a) 9.00~dfsg-2 (if approved by Release team and no new bugs found) b) 8.71~dfsg2-7 (if someone steps up to package AND MAINTAIN it) c) 8.71~dfsg2-6 (if Release team choose to ignore the RC bugs) d) none (if Release team choose to drop ghostscript from Squeeze) I consider c) and d) as highly unlikely.
Should not this bug #584653 be left open (not "done"), as a reminder that squeeze is insecure? Or maybe, that is tracked in some way I am not aware of.
As Julien correctly points out, the "done" marking included a version hint, so when telling the BTS that you are interested in Squeeze, it will properly show the bug as still not closed there. Thanks for your concern, though! :-)
Seems to me that in your package, the default is -P- (not -P). Should not this be mentioned in bug #584663 ?Could your package include the patch for bug #592569 also, to have -dSAFER as default?
Let's discuss these issues at the particular bugreports. I really appreciate your persistence!! :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
