On Thu, December 29, 2011 14:45, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Thu, December 29, 2011 13:18, Philipp Kern wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 12:51:23PM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: >>> > Given that this will be the final point release for lenny, might it >>> be >>> > worth making an exception this time and also including packages from >>> > o-p-u? >>> We could also consider to make it not the exception but the rule. The >>> packages are accepted into stable afterall - so why not include them >>> into >>> ia32-libs at the same time? >> >> They're at that point accepted into proposed-updates. If we know that >> there are problems we can ignore a package at point release time, so >> that >> it's not included into stable. Having it already in ia32-libs might >> make >> that harder. (Or we may just not care about the content of ia32-libs.) > > It has pros and cons - I would say that in most cases the chance on > trouble with a package is quite low, but the updated packages but do have > some kind of useful fix included (hence the stable update in the first > place), so it kind of makes sense to bring it to ia32-libs users sooner > rather than later. But there's certainly a more cautious counterpoint to > be made. I leave it up to the SRM's to say which they prefer.
I now uploaded ia32-libs and ia32-libs-gtk for squeeze and ia32-libs for lenny. I've added proposed-updates to the lenny sources but I don't think that in this specific iteration it made any difference. Let me know if you want me to always include proposed-updates in the future or only for the final point release of a distribution. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/ec20a5c91ae929575e1ee4b2241f792f.squir...@wm.kinkhorst.nl
