On Sat, Sep 09, 2017 at 05:56:45PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> Control: tag -1 confirmed
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:49:10 +0200, Maximiliano Curia wrote:
>
> > kscreenlocker 5.8.6-2 currently in stretch to 5.8.7-1+deb9u1
> > #############
> >
> > kscreenlocker (5.8.7-1+deb9u1) stretch; urgency=medium
testing only has 5.8.7-1, so 5.8.7-1~deb9u1 would make more sense.
[19:24] <juliank> jcristau: shouldn't kscreenlocker/5.8.7-1+deb9u1 be
kscreenlocker/5.8.7-1~deb9u1, 5.8.7-1 is still in testing (although a new
version is in unstable indeed), and stable has 5.8.6?
[19:24] <juliank> (from last saturday)
[19:25] <jcristau> juliank: yes
[19:26] <jcristau> that would make more sense
(this probably also applies to some of the plasma stuff, I have
not checked).
(Not an SRM)
--
Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
| Ubuntu Core Developer |
When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to ('inline'). Thank you.
