Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:32:44PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 09:12:30PM -0600, Joel Baker <lucifer@lightbearer.com> was heard to say:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 10:22:40PM -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> >
> > > Sid is the same as unstable. And Branden just explained why that's a
> > > problem. ^,^
> >
> > I was under the impression that Unstable -> Woody, and Experimental -> Sid,
> > thus implying that it is *not*, in fact, the same.
>
> That used to be the case, IIRC, but sid has been unstable for quite
> some time now (is it a year yet?)
>
> > And in fact, when Colin did an update of Groff for the *BSD folks, he
> > sent it only to sid, and that version has not propagated into testing
> > as far as I know
>
> Probably because Anthony hasn't told the testing scripts to try to
> move BSD stuff into testing.
Except that it wasn't BSD-specific, just a version of the main package that
had a BSD patch applied. It was still Arch: any. And, just so that folks
can play along at home, it was version 1.17.2-16, with the following taken
from the .changes file:
Changes:
groff (1.17.2-16) experimental; urgency=low
.
* Experimental upload for the benefit of the NetBSD porters.
[ rest elided ]
So, perhaps I should rephrase the question: is there a problem (other than
lack of time) with doing an upload of 4.2.0-1 to the experimental archive,
whatever the backing name for it is?
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: