Adam D. Barratt wrote: > Thanks for working on this. As a general comment, if you're submitting > patches for both stable and oldstable please do so using two different > bugs; otherwise we can't track the acceptance and release status in a > sane way.
Ok, I'll do that in the future. > I'd be happy to accept the Squeeze package, with a couple of small > tweaks: > - please mention the bug number (i.e. #635849) in the changelog > - please make the version 3.02-12+squeeze1 Fixed. See attached debdiff. > The former of the above changes also applies to the Lenny package, but > that needs a little more consideration as at least at first glance I'm > not overly keen on the concept of disabling functionality in stable > updates, even if it does resolve security issues. This was the upstream xpdf fix for these issues. So, proposed-updates have little more leeway, right? Sometimes it's ok to change functionality; for example kernel updates to support newer hardware, removals of unsupportable/broken packages, etc. Would it be ok if I added a news entry that mentioned how to revert this change in the case that the user finds that unacceptable? Thanks, Mike
xpdf.debdiff
Description: Binary data
