Re: [2002-04-30] Release Status Update
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:31:10AM +0200, Tille, Andreas wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > So, the final automatic run of the testing scripts was today, and will
> > be reflected in the next mirror pulse. From this point, we'll have
> > manually approved security updates to some packages, and very little
> > else, until release. Requests from the maintainer to remove packages
> > that are unreleasable may be considered. Requests from the maintainter
> > for an update to a package will generally be considered a request to
> > remove the package.
> I hope the last sentence was a typo. Why should a request for update
> should be turned into a request to remove?
If there is a problem with the woody version such that an update would be
required in order to make it suitable for release, then the package should
be removed, as there is no longer time for such updates.
> I just want to raise an additional problem I try to solve since one week:
> Solving Bug #143908 requires a change of name of the package and thus the
> only way to fix this bug was to upload a package which *seemed* *new* to
> the upload queue. I tried to clarify this to ftpmaster since several days
> but got no response at all.
Don't hold your breath; they are busy. It is just too late.
> In consequence paul, libgtkimreg and libgtkdatabox were removed from
> testing (without notificationch sucks in my opinion, but anyway this is OT
> in this thread). All three packages where part of potato and should
> definitely go into woody.
Five of my packages are removed or scheduled to be removed, all due to
archive problems beyond my control. Such is the way of the release.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org