Hello Branden, On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 08:29:38PM -0400, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 05:28:25PM -0400, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > So my goals were, in this order: > > > 1) Get the package suitable for unstable (which it wasn't); then > > > 2) Get the package suitable for testing. > > It'll be suitable for testing for Buster, that's for sure. My bad luck > to return during a release freeze.
Right. But your wording ("then") suggested that (2) could be done
exclusively of (1).
> I'm interested in the least-effort solution (for other people) that
> doesn't involve shipping a badly broken package in Stretch.
Well, letting it drop out of testing is technically the least-effort
solution.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
