On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:15:46PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Hi, > > attached is a proposal for an NMU. > > It will be archived on: > > http://people.debian.org/~nion/nmu-diff/openldap2.3-2.38-1_2.3.38-1.1.patch
> I'm not sure why we would do this rather than just package 2.3.39. > Wouldn't the latter be a better idea for unstable? (For the stable > security release, of course, we should just cherry-pick the one fix, > assuming it applies to the stable version, which I haven't checked.) > Also, 2.4 is now officially released, so we should really switch to that > ASAP so that we can get rid of 2.2. I am GREATLY looking forward to this (btw, it's 2.1, not 2.2 that we're stuck with right now :-). > I'll send more mail about that later this week, though, since that's going > to be a complex transition. Upgrading to the upstream 2.3.39 release > should be simple. Also looking forward to this mail wrt the complexity of the transition - I think I have a good handle on the library transition issues already, but if there are server issues as well I remain ignorant of them. On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 09:24:42AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > And yes, please do import 2.4 into Subversion -- that would be great! > (Should we consider using an svn-buildpackage-friendly layout in > Subversion for 2.4 so that we can use svn-upgrade to import new upstream > versions? Or possibly even enable merge-with-upstream and not store the > upstream source in Subversion at all?) I would like to see movement towards svn-buildpackage-friendliness. I also think that's preferable over merge-with-upstream, based on Joey Hess's past blogging on the subject. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
