On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:27:02AM +0100, Jordi Mallach wrote:
> This means that if we prepare a new party, many hard bugs will remain,
> so skilled people would be needed (specially for porting issues on
> non-i386 arches).
There's also a fair number of easy, but not RC bugs that need to be
fixed. I think it's probably reasonable to start working on those as
part of the bugsquash NMUs, too (like people don't already have enough
to do :). The usr/doc bugs Adam H filed might be something to work on,
eg. Missing Build-Depends are probably handle-able too. It should be
fairly straightforward to make up a list of which of those are still
open by the time of the next party.
Most of the RC bugs at the moment seem to be build issues. It'd be really
nice to get as many of those fixed as possible, especially where the
only problem is inaccurate build-depends.
It'd be particularly nice if we could get the standard-system into an
RC-bug-free state. At that point it'll make it a fair bit easier to
just drop buggy packages from woody and we'll be able to get a much
better feel for where we're at. At the moment the buggy packages in
required/important/stable are roughly:
bind9
binutils
console-data
console-tools
exim
gcc-2.95
gdb
gpm
mig
mount
net-tools
openldap2
pam
perl
python
shellutils
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpLipdMjKZ9a.pgp
Description: PGP signature