On Sat, 2013-02-16 at 12:03 +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > On 2013-02-16 11:09, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > Does "should be fixable" mean you haven't tested your patch? It looks > > okay but I'd really feel happier knowing it had been tested... > > The fusionforge packages are not really in a good shape for automated > testing (e.g. #678025, #662897) ... and I never used fusionforge myself, > so I don't know how to properly test it manually. Therefore I'm a bit > reluctant to NMU fusionforge without having a positive comment on the > patch by the maintainer.
Okay. > Could the new version suffix "+squeeze1" break something? One would hope not, but we have seen situations where packages sometimes don't cope well with the "+" (although they should probably be fixed). > But after having run piuparts install and upgrade tests on the patched > packages (that takes some time for fusionforge ...) I can now confirm that > * there are no previously unseen installation or upgrade errors > * the file conflict is solved by unpacking gforge-common before > gforge-web-apache2 Thanks. In principle I'd be happy with accepting the patch. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
