On 2018-12-19 17:03:26, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:40:07AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> [...]
> I've now also re-read this thread (for the 2nd time today..) and first
> I'd like to notice that all the concerns were only brought up in the
> last week, so it was definitly right from you to work on this for those
> months. Second, it now reads to me as if Emilio changed his mind after
> expressing concerns on Dec 14th, he indeed replied much more favorably
> on the 18th.
Thanks for your message, I'm relieved and happy to get support from
you. :)
> I mostly worried that you didnt test all dependent packages and that we
> essentially might break those when trying to support a package no
> customer has expressed need for. But then I also suppose such breakage
> could be fixed...
So I was mostly concerned about libgcrypt dependencies, and in
particular cryptsetup, and smoke tests seems to go through okay
there, for what that's worth...
> and now we are back to square one :/
Not really. We're actually at square N-1, we just need to do that one
final jump to get in the "let's actually support that newer version"
game. :p
Should we pursue this? Are there any other packages that should be
tested?
Would love other people's opinion as well...
A.
--
Pour marcher au pas d'une musique militaire, il n'y a pas besoin de
cerveau, une moelle épinière suffit.
- Albert Einstein
