On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:50:49 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 08:56:46PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 16:13 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > > To the untrained eye, the diff between
> > > 6732c0e8ccb4d57d6a970973f994a9d2d3509def
> > > and
> > > 3b2738befa7fe934d0d55b77fe1fcf28aafbe424
> > >
> > > in upstream git is what's required for this, but the patch would need
> > > a bit of work to apply cleanly. Note also that there
> > > are some memory leaks fixed in 2.25 which might be a good idea to fix
> > > too.
> > >
> > > Given all this, might the best idea be allow an exception for the
> > > new upstream? The full changelog is:
> >
> > Most of the changes sound potentially worthy of inclusion. What does
> > the debdiff look like?
>
> File lists identical (after any substitutions)
>
> Control files: lines which differ (wdiff format)
> ------------------------------------------------
> Installed-Size: [-196-] {+208+}
> Version: [-2.22-1.1-] {+2.25-0.1+}
>
The debdiff between both .dscs, not between the .debs.> Trivial interdiff (including reverted patch included upstream) > attached. > This doesn't seem to be the full story, it has no upstream changes... Cheers, Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
