* Adam D. Barratt:
> Ah, I suspect there has been some confusion regarding the quoted text -
> "that" is "a fixed package", not "the package in unstable". The mention
> of unstable was a general reference to the workflow requirement for
> issues to be resolved in unstable first, not a specific sug
Hi,
On Mon, 2019-01-07 at 20:28 +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> I had the impression that updating to a new upstream version was a
> done deal. Quoting yourself
> (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=913674#10):
>
> ,
> > Firstly, one needs to identify whether the same issue affect
Hi Adam,
> That's rather large for a regression fix.
Agreed. I had previously tried fixing the patch that broke Yubikey NEO
support, but I was unsuccessful. This is documented in #910786.
I can understand concerns about updating the upstream version; the only
other option I see would involve rem
On Mon, 2019-01-07 at 18:49 +0100, Hilko Bengen wrote:
> I am preparing an stretch-p-u upload of opensc/0.19.0-1~deb9u1 which
> is essentially a trivial backport. What should the changelog look
> like -- should it be based on the 0.19.0-1 release or should it also
> contain the 0.16.0-3+deb9u1 whic
Hi,
I am preparing an stretch-p-u upload of opensc/0.19.0-1~deb9u1 which is
essentially a trivial backport. What should the changelog look like --
should it be based on the 0.19.0-1 release or should it also contain the
0.16.0-3+deb9u1 which got us into this mess?
Cheers,
-Hilko
5 matches
Mail list logo
