Re: [2002-04-30] Release Status Update
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?
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.
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.
I wouldn't consider it a bad solution if my intend to fix a bug which
was titled in the sense *Could cause problems in upgrade* would make
an upgrade really impossible - because they were removed because the
fixed packages did not reached the archive automatically. This does
not mean that I would whine about ftpmaster because those people have
surely more important problems, but I think that packages which where
fixed in time should just be released.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: