On 2016-04-14 11:36, Tormod Volden wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Jonathan Wiltshire <j...@debian.org>
wrote:
Personally I would like to see it go through jessie-updates, and then
we can
put this embarrassment behind us quicker - especially as the fix is so
trivial. But that's up to SRMs.
That would be fine for me as well. Note that the "pu" I put in subject
was just what reportbug had to offer. I'd would have gone for the
fastest way, whatever you may call it.
reportbug is correct. There is no way that you get a package into
-updates without it having gone through the standard p-u procedure first
- see
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00010.html
I put "jessie" in the
changelog, I don't know if it should be "jessie-updates" but reading
No, "jessie" is correct.
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html#distribution
there is no mention of "codename-updates", nor "codename" FWIW.
Reading that to the letter, the changelog should say "stable", but I
have been told otherwise.
I thought dev-ref had been updated to mention using codenames
throughout; looks like that was only for security.
Regards,
Adam
