Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1200664

Bug#1072821: wireshark: binNMUs revert t64 transition

From	Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.dist
Subject	Bug#1072821: wireshark: binNMUs revert t64 transition
Date	2024-06-12 17:10 +0200
Message-ID	<IOxLP-2pjJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<IN3Ga-1tIq-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <INqjn-1Hv9-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <INqMp-1HVh-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <IN3Ga-1tIq-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <INqMp-1HVh-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 9:21 AM Bálint Réczey <balint@balintreczey.hu> wrote:
> I've just added sid and oracular. I can't recall any upload targeting
> devel in Ubuntu, but it may work, thus I can add that as well.
> I expect the next upstream SO version bump to take place this
> summer/autumn, thus the code is expected to be short-lived.
> Is there any better example of generating a t64 transitioned control
> file for one set of releases and a not transitioned one for backports?

I have seen 'devel' used for the upload series a few times in Ubuntu,
but it's unusual.

The simplest way to handle backporting is to ensure your package is
not built on affected 32-bit architectures (armel & armhf for Debian
release architectures).

I'm not aware of anyone attempting debian/rules tweaks like you did
for Debian Backports, but I've never worked with Debian Backports
either.

Thank you,
Jeremy Bícha

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1072821: wireshark: binNMUs revert t64 transition Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2024-06-08 14:50 +0200
  Bug#1072821: wireshark: binNMUs revert t64 transition Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com> - 2024-06-09 15:00 +0200
  Bug#1072821: wireshark: binNMUs revert t64 transition Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com> - 2024-06-12 17:10 +0200

csiph-web