Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal Tags: bullseye User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org Usertags: pu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 SRM, In preparing the rustc 1.51 upload/backport (to support backports of the latest firefox-esr and thunderbird packages) it has been suggested that to avoid some issues associated with providing a significant new version of rustc in the rustc binary package (along with the associated library packages), that I prepare the 1.51 rustc package with a different name. Following the model of what was done for gcc, nasm, and nodejs, I was considering source package rustc-mozilla with a single binary package (also rustc-mozilla) to ensure that rdeps don't end up getting surprised by a new rustc. Would this be considered acceptable for the bullseye and buster uploads of rustc 1.51? (I intend to file a separate bug for buster-pu once I receive some direction via this bug.) Regards, - -Roberto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEz9ERzDttUsU/BH8iLNd4Xt2nsg8FAmGdTOEACgkQLNd4Xt2n sg+m+Q/7BN5tycR2w/9DjyOIHAlC/rrOOfsJraa1gORDKf5pT9GMk7J3oJanKLOI YsWSUlC1a+4anQWGhGE+IMz50r5U01hZ7JhdnJhcSiLv+18gWY5LZB0fgbO/TvRG 2C95uubCYAePg7TTOd9fQRhuEBCgh+h0R+jN8EdNlJRRfEGZ7pkYQ3YOlkVJYztU LQjWALZiMBbsh9ZxVq/zvys5nD2CO326M3PILGOFyqp/GFWrraEpppQlcjEqjemv v7ygEzDvSJasv0AMAVIbQGrWWO/UeqMPAcwOVR0JGhz/06gDXxr5ubV53RbuhSai Nwub60JaufIhm6clvbMmto+w0tTyeIM9IGTgyQq1j7ah9belvK43Rx2lScnfs+4c kimppFDI4xei4aMzct+3/RgSBsijibH2cWfIPwiH6R8PuBZRDglAEaABsmT08WrS EpVmT9gO+7Bkqo+v7uysvLQYlJ0R14WC4VB/yoWJSwmIqAg3yuHhdmJtSYbehFuA Y5fKNwg4/hAvdTLwU9s9Q+cCEId2RWbnIKyS0wNgEStNTe12ue9P7POSFKGnXLGx sVo4bg8FG+U2sJ12P0nVrRdxGT/OuKjqp5PpZZ+JF00sqKEArqkiphMiwnnkCnUD k1YcSIn+E0xh+k8+GK1NxkJX8V9Vsteoba34SqadJ6LRvBF3Lz0= =i90C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
