On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:41:18AM -0000, Michael Vogt wrote:
> I just to seb128 about this on irc and he suggested that we should SRU
> the change instead to benefit from the additional week of testing in
> -proposed and to minimize the risk of regression. Of course that wil
> mean that for e.g. xubuntu/lubuntu the SRU adds a new libindicator3-1
> dependency.
Provided that the desktop team is happy to carry the unity whitelist forward
into release to cover the gap, I'm ok with this being an SRU.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:41:18AM -0000, Michael Vogt wrote:
> I just to seb128 about this on irc and he suggested that we should SRU
> the change instead to benefit from the additional week of testing in
> -proposed and to minimize the risk of regression. Of course that wil
> mean that for e.g. xubuntu/lubuntu the SRU adds a new libindicator3-1
> dependency.
Provided that the desktop team is happy to carry the unity whitelist forward
into release to cover the gap, I'm ok with this being an SRU.
-- www.debian. org/
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>