Re: tasksel vs. trixie?
Paul Gevers <[email protected]> Wed, 28 May 2025 21:06:02 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.cd,gmane.linux.debian.devel.release,gmane.linux.debian.devel.boot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, On 27-05-2025 15:59, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > I'm still ambivalent about this, and I still don't want to push in > either direction. I'll just mention that reviewing, merging, and > also adjusting… is all done as far as I'm concerned. > > The remaining question is whether that's for trixie or forky. I'm assuming that if we were to accept this, we'd enlarge the key package set. Let's not do that this late in the cycle. Paul
OpenPGP_signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 585 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- wsC7BAABCABvBYJoN16aCRCcXJnrBb11CkcUAAAAAAAeACBzYWx0QG5vdGF0aW9u cy5zZXF1b2lhLXBncC5vcmeTakZbzDGTg6JMkX94wU7QXdii5f0KM6DJ70n92Cpg FxYhBFi2bUhza+k7BS3mcpxcmesFvXUKAABuwQgAp+aR/AiOEIoAEROcDdt2O4ml F0odqNJXmuUxGxaFV7H9RM/4Qo0nHi8VCAK2nU6Wsubnajl62rJp9WQzn0I7ylzJ v4eOtTxBcw/ZO01EZ3ca+bdKGVK0tB3/5beF4FmZXIS/3+5oeMAtunzlwgIh728h hSB4OQV7+kfNlbw21j1tzl6Qvz15f7Y0+SqcpK7Y2lKlfeyDsu2KNAsY3lXBDbR2 jkAh1oMnRqCh7RfGID6+4zbeHfSweaDWIqbYwYTnaIVXk0q+SvOLA4Mefu+eXIGC BQHPTRNA/+EePKnhoWW6DDlwCBl3WrVZGjEG0Qa81Eath7fu+AMQA/fOPGOCqw== =9QEZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----