On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Santiago Vila wrote: > That dpkg and diffutils 2.9-1 can't work together is obvious. > That such fact is due to a bug in diffutils is what I'm unsure about. > > My idea was to reassign the bug back to dpkg-dev so that you can close > it whenever it's adapted to the new diff behaviour.
I have cloned the bug, so we have two copies of the bug. One for dpkg-dev (#570008) and one for diffutils (#570064). You close the one in diffutils, I close the one in dpkg-dev once it supports the new output. But before I do my part in dpkg-dev I would like to have the opinion of diffutils upstream (they were cced in my initial mail, maybe you can forward the mail to the mailing list if any) to know what is the proper way to use diff and detect that diff won't do its work because one file or the other is binary. > I see these two examples very similar. If the first one is acceptable > and normal, so it should be the second one, IMHO. It's acceptable of course, I did just suggest that it might be a good idea to avoid it for one release because diffutils is essential and dpkg is essential too (and dpkg must be upgraded together with dpkg-dev). I leave that up to you in the end. > To summarize: Please let us fix this in squeeze if we can, just like > any other bug, I don't see a good reason to delay it intentionally. We'll fix it in squeeze for sure. > BTW: You might want to contact upstream by using the new list > "bug-diffutils.gnu.org" that now exists. bug-diffut...@gnu.org you mean? is that a ML and not a bug submission list? Can you do it since you are the diffutils maintainer in Debian? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100216123722.ga...@rivendell
