[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian GNU/Linux 2.1r4 Released

Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> But here's a question: uploads to stable are fairly infrequent and
> usually important (this one even had urgency: high).

There is a surprising amount of packages that get uploaded for stable
that are completely irrelevant and sometimes even broken..

> I was personally not aware that important fixes had to be announced on
> debian-release (it's not in the developers-reference or elsewhere,

They don't have to be announced, but that is where we coordinate releases
so if you want to be sure something is included it's in for your own benefit
to post a note there.

> Also, the changelog referred to two bug reports; either would have probably
> indicated the severity of the problem, or finally, the package maintainer
> could have been contacted in cases where there was still doubt.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to check all bugreports mentioned
in all changelogs to see if an upload may be relevant, and the changelog
didn't mention anything that sounded important enough to be put into

> Essentially, it's a shame that a lack of communication led to this fix
> being left out of the slink update.

Please reupload it and mention in the changelog that it's a Y2K update;
I'll make sure it gets mentioned on the Y2K webpage as well then.


 / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience  \
| wichert@liacs.nl                    http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

Attachment: pgpyl6W70j9bg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: