On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 01:22:57PM -0500, Benjamin Mesing wrote: > > > So please disregard my statement against "testing" > > (In this case, xterm could have had a conflict with your package to > > avoid screwing users over unnoticed; and we could (in future) have added > > a note to the testing scripts to not allow upgrades of xterm until a > > fixed version of packagesearch is also included) > It turned out that what I thought to be a deliberate change of how > arguments are handled in xterm was actually considered to be a bug, and > reported to the BTS [1]. Though xterm made the migration to testing, > because the bug was only of severity normal. So it is nothing wrong with > the testing mechanism, but more likely a wrongly set severity of the > bug. > But here is what I started with: the features in packagesearch relying > on xterm were broken in testing once the version entered it. I was able > to work around this bug in unstable as soon as I realized it, but the > migration of the fixed package to testing was delayed due to the QT > library transition. This same Qt library transition would have prevented some number of users of unstable from installing a fixed version of packagesearch during that same period. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature