On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:09:09PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > (b) that you were a Debian Developer therefore *could* NMU a package. > I don't need to be a DD to NMU something. Who is signing these uploads for you? > > (c) that a wishlist bug against an "informational list of packages" was > > more important than the hundreds of RC bugs still outstanding > > against sarge. > The package fails to build from source and as far as amd64 goes this > is severity serious. For me that is far more important than hundreds > of RC bugs that are not against build-essential or base packages. As far as amd64 goes, there are *no* bugs of severity: serious in Debian. amd64 is not a release architecture at present, and policy does not contain any amd64-specific requirements. > The urgency is to get the sarge sources to build for amd64 so the > amd64 release deviates as little as possible from the official sarge > and the RM team has agreed to allow such changes through t-p-u. Please refresh my memory re: where this was agreed to. I don't remember anyone being given carte blanche to upload amd64-specific changes to t-p-u, and I certainly don't think we've said anything to suggest we want to be used as a weapon when arguing with maintainers about amd64 support. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature