Re: The png fiasco, libqt2, and GNOME
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:43:05PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 10:46:52PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > This is not something that can be done with bugs,
> I don't understand why you say that.
Let me clarify. This is not something that can be done *cleanly* with
bugs, nor something that I have any desire to do with bugs.
> > Bug AJ to do it. It is not a bug in libqt2, and it is most certainly not
> > critical.
> I would suggest that the consensus opinion of the last week is that
> the partial upgrade breakage for the libqt & KDE packages was a problem.
> I am only concerned about avoiding the same problem occurring when
> the packages trickle into TESTING, one by one.
> If we let the updated libqt2 into TESTING without simultaneously
> updating *all* the packages that use it and libpng, then TESTING
> becomes unreleasable. That is a problem, no?
> I don't care how this problem is avoided. I am only concerned that
> if nothing is done within a day or two, then libqt2 *will* go into
> testing. To my mind, putting an RC bug on libqt2 is the easiest option.
> If you feel otherwise, I'll leave you to fight it out with AJT.
So let them trickle in over a couple of days; what's the harm? There's
no bug in any of the packages; at most an important-severity to rebuild
with libpng3 (all of mine are currently being rebuilt and uploaded), so
I don't see why you want to inflate severities.
Daniel Stone <email@example.com>
<gummybear> i am going to start kernel hacking tonight
* XFire gets out his peril sensitive sunglasses
* XFire sets them to "Extra-Dark"
<dopey> XFire: peril sensitive sunglasses = /ignore
<XFire> dopey: that, and turning off my mobile phone.