hm... the patch isn't invasive, but idjc (binary) has never been published to edgy or prior.
Imo -backports would be a preferable target then.
However you could also argue, that it fixes a broken source package, which would at least to some extent qualify -updates. OTOH the source isn't really broken by itself, just the dependencies reside in the wrong section.
Not quite sure about this one, but I have a slight preference for -backports. Other opinions?
Hi,
hm... the patch isn't invasive, but idjc (binary) has never been published to edgy or prior.
Imo -backports would be a preferable target then.
However you could also argue, that it fixes a broken source package, which would at least to some extent qualify -updates. OTOH the source isn't really broken by itself, just the dependencies reside in the wrong section.
Not quite sure about this one, but I have a slight preference for -backports. Other opinions?
Cheers,
Stefan.