On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:18:29 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > Having it in unstable now would be unfortunate (with or without this > > fix) since a new upstream version would most probably not migrate to > > testing, meaning we'd need an upload to testing-proposed-updates. > There's a balance here, but in my opinion it is *way* past time for 1.8 > to be in unstable.
Ok. > > I guess it makes sense to cancel the NMU since both Ahmed and you are > > looking after the package, and let you sort out the best way to > > proceed? > [shrug] I have no interest at all in 1.6 at this point, so if you think > fixing this bug in wheezy is important, maybe a testing-proposed-updates > upload would still be useful? Or removing 1.6 from testing? In any case, I've cancelled the NMU now in order not to inferfere with the 1.8 version in NEW. > FWIW, let me explain why I don't care about 1.6 any more. [..] Thank you for the details. > This obviously conflicts with the idea of keeping unstable available as a > path for easy patch migration to testing, though. Personally, having > bits in unstable that are useful to me is much more important than > fixing wheezy right now, since I'm already resigned to the idea that > we're going to have to do builds for backports to keep geda-gaf and pcb > useful to wheezy users in the future. I see; this also sounds a bit like it's not worth releasing wheezy with 1.6? Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: The Eagles: James Dean
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
