On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:18:10AM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote: > On Friday 04 July 2003 01:52, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > What do you propose ? > > > Do you think Debian must keep old version of stunnel (3.x) for > > > compatibility > > > > Given how it sounds like upstream are completely incompetent and have > > decided to gratuitously break compatibility, that sounds like a good idea. > > > > > and do not include new version ? > > > > Why wouldn't you include the new version as well? > > Yes, keep the two versions of stunnel is probably the right way to handle > this > problem. Now the problem is that stunnel is uploaded in version 4 on stunnel > package. What is the correct way to reintroduce stunnel for compatibility > reasons ? uploading a new stunnel3 package will not resolve the problem.
Epoch it and upload stunnel4 as a new package. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
pgpWoPzFgPr3C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
