Re: supertux 0.1.3-1.2 MIGRATED to testing

[Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at>]

	Hi!

* Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> [2008-07-15 17:00:49 CEST]:
> (stupid gmail)

 Agreed.

> Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> (15/07/2008):
> > It has to with it inasmuch that the program manages to crash whatever
> > portion of the display stack has been dying in those cases. This
> > should not happen, agreed. Still, _something_ is wrong and the root
> > cause lies (lay?) with supertux.
> 
> It might be SDL, or X itself, etc., not necessarily supertux. It's not
> obvious (to me, at least) that supertux is to blame.

 Kibi, I guess Richard is aware that supertux might not be the problem
but the cause. Nevertheless we can't deny that supertux causes these
problems and that this thing indeed _is_ something relevant to consider
to *not* push the package to unstable and thus also technically calling
it a lenny release candidate.

 Even if we are sure that the problems are in sdl or x and we have the
bugreports at hand, I would still be very cautious with pushing it to
unstable. The bugreports might not get addressed in time or might not be
considered relevant enough because they might only affect supertux, one
doesn't know.

 So pretty please, agreeing that the problem is in a different package
shouldn't be the reason for pushing the package into unstable - there
should be more than just this.

 Thanks, to both of you for efforts, but please, let's work together
instead of against. :)

 So long,
Rhonda