On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:33:07AM +0000, Alastair McKinstry wrote: > On Máirt, 2005-03-01 at 16:35 -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > [Aside: A few non-d-i packages that build udebs are in inconsistent states in > > unstable, and the newer versions of them won't go in for rc3 unless this > > is cleared up in time. Which is problimatic because we have older > > versions of these udebs in testing from rc2, probably missing sources by > > now: > > - eject is missing arm and mipsel > > - hdparm is missing mipsel > > - lvm2 is missing mipsel and FTBFS on sparc > > - ppp is missing mipsel > > - strace FTBFS on alpha, ia64, s390 > > ] > With exquisite timing, bug #297661 was filed as Release-Critical against > iso-codes. A fix is now pending in CVS, but not uploaded. > The problem was incorrect entries in iso_639.tab; this file is not used > in iso_3166_udeb, in d-i; the file is marked deprecated as the XML > version is to be used instead; however it has gotten out-of-sync with > corrections and changes in the XML version; now fixed. > The decision is whether or not to do an iso-codes upload. Its an arch: > all file, now problems with buildds delaying the build. My preference is > to downgrade the bug to Important: and upload post-sarge; if it breaks > other software (as claimed) then fix the other software to use the XML > version. This is noted in email to submitter and BTS. > The decision is in Joeyh and the RM's hands. As far as I'm concerned, it's entirely Joey's call. When it's possible to work around a release-critical bug by making changes to packages outside the installer, it is certainly acceptable that we do so if there's a need. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature