[Debian-med-packaging] libbpp-seq_2.2.0-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Alexander Wirt]

On Tue, 17 May 2016, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Bad dak is bad
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=libbpp-seq&suite=unstable
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.0.3-1       | oldstable       | amd64, armel, armhf, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, s390x, sparc
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1       | stable          | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1       | stable-kfreebsd | kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386
> libbpp-seq9 | 2.1.0-1       | unstable        | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
> 
> 
> 
> dak ls libbpp-seq9v5 
> libbpp-seq9v5 | 2.2.0-1       | testing    | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
> libbpp-seq9v5 | 2.2.0-1       | unstable   | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, hurd-i386, i386, kfreebsd-amd64, kfreebsd-i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, powerpc, ppc64el, s390x
> 
> 
> I guess Andreas is fully correct, the rename is not necessary for backports, right?
I would expect it to follow unstable. I guess the rename had a reason.

Alex