Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze
Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
> Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > As the python-xml maintainer, I think that I have the right to react
> > on this lie.
> > The bug submitter decided to build boot-floppies with the python2.1-xml
> > from unstable instead of the one from testing. AFAIK, boot-floppies
> > must be built against packages in testing rather that tose from
> > unstable.
> > This would have never happened if they had been built correctly.
> I'm sorry, but that is not a reasonable attitude.
> All developers of packages who can potentially affect the boot floppies
> (and that includes all of base, and all of their very large build dep
> set) should give the needs of the boot floppies priority, with the only
> higher priority being fixing RC bugs, if they're interested in helping
> debian release at all.
Joey, please check the BTS or the debian-boot list before going further.
When I received the bug report, I immediately worked with debian-boot
people and everything was fixed a few days later, although nothing had
broken in _testing_. I do considered that everything was prepared in order
not to break boot-floppies from testing.
What's wrong with this?
Jérôme Marant <firstname.lastname@example.org>