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

[Retraction] Re: how did cupsomatic-ppd get into testing?

I just realized this version of the package actually isn't in
testing... apparently adding unstable to my sources.list and putting
APT::Default-Release "testing"; in my apt.conf will still allow packages from unstable to be installed if they're necessary to upgrade an already installed package... bummer.

Anyway, I retract what I said in the parent post.

DvB <dvanbalen@jam.rr.com> writes:

> The above package is in testing, even though it has one "grave" and one
> "important" functionality bug.
> First, printing stopped working due to the "grave" bug. This appeared
> shortly after a kernel upgrade debacle in which I neglected to compile
> the lp module into my new kernel, so I assumed the problem was caused by
> my own stupidity and it didn't occur to me that it might be a bug in the
> package.
> Now, the package won't even finish installing due to the "important"
> bug (conflicts with one of its dependencies), which finally prompted me
> to visit its bug page and realize what my problem was all along.
> Shouldn't versions of packages with this level of bugginess be kept out
> of testing?
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=cupsomatic-ppd&archive=no
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: