Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at> (15/07/2008): > 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. I don't want to push it. I'm saying there might be no bug in supertux at all, which in the contrary Richard seems to take for granted. And since an example might be needed, here it goes: #405803. Blender wasn't at fault. > 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. We should pretty much sure to get this bugreport in time so that we have a chance to fix those bugs in time, instead of letting them unnoticed. > 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. I never meant to do that. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature