On Fri, 2013-10-04 at 21:37 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Freitag, 4. Oktober 2013, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > So to be (crystal) clear: we should reupload slbackup with those > > > NACKed > > > changes removed?! > > I'm arguing with myself a little over that one, in the "should we just > > cover it under 'only -edu probably use it'" general sort of area. > > :-) I'm curious for the result of this arguing! :)
Me too :) > > > Ok, changelog diff attached. For all 7 packages combined. > > What's happening with education-task-lxde and chmsee? I noticed that's > > not in the proposed d-e changelog. > > You send the mail about chmsee the day after we released Debian Edu Wheezy > and > these changes are only those, thats why. I've removed the chmsee recommends > in > svn, but that change hasn't been uploaded yet. And as it's recommends it > doesnt really matter anyway, though obviously I'd be happy to upload a > changed > package still. Okay. If you're happy that leaving it in the recommends doesn't cause you any issues (at least for the package in the main archive rather than the -edu one) then I'll leave that up to you. > Which brings me back to my initial question whether we should reupload these > packages to wheezy(-proposed updates) with ~deb7u1 added to the version > number? I was going to say "go ahead with the packages we didn't have queries on" but I've just noticed in the -edu changelog that it adds a dependency on the new package from -config. :( I realise it's not entirely the answer you were looking for, but I'd be happy for you to upload -artwork, -doc, -install and sitesummary already. Regards, Adam -- 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/1380965547.9262.26.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
