On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:15:20PM -0500, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Packages that were unreleasable presumably weren't counted in the > > distribution release totals. That the number of non-free packages in > > unstable is larger than the number of non-free packages in any release > > is instructive. > For woody, it might mean lots of them weren't built for all releasable > archs. Hardly an indicative sign since non-free is not autobuilt. Being built (or buildable) on all archs has never been a requirement for including a package in a stable release; the only requirement is that a package must be rebuilt on all architectures it has *previously* been built on before it can move from unstable to testing. This isn't a very solid explanation for these packages not making it into a stable release. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp0jkg92HEeY.pgp
Description: PGP signature