Hi Daniel, Daniel Pocock wrote (22 Jan 2014 11:35:39 GMT) : > If you look closely, you'll see that the bug I reopened was 696011 and > this other bug was linked to it and Balint replied on this bug (691169)
Ah, right, sorry I didn't look at the 4 bugs the one I've replied to is merged with. > For 696011, the patch can be safely used for wheezy, it doesn't break > anything, it just gives people the ability to use a newer kernel if they > wish to do so. If they are using a standard kernel, the patch does > nothing. You might want to propose a stable update to the release team, then. Or did you already? I don't remember how I met this set of bugs initially, might very well be by triaging release team's bugs. > Maybe that means it should become a wishlist item (although it > is still quite a high priority item for those who can't run the stock > wheezy kernel on their hardware) Given wheezy-backports apparently has everything needed, it seems that this only is high priority for those who can't run the Wheezy kernel, *and* for some reason don't want to use the set of consistent Linux + VirtualBox packages that are readily available in backports. So indeed, given there's already a good and supported solution, this request does look like a wishlist to me. But I'm not the maintainer anyway :) Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
