On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 09:36:46AM +0000, Mark Howard wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:13:23AM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: > > The thing is that #215314 has tag: sid bacause it only applies to > > unstable version (upstream release is on its way and will close it). > > Version in testing is clean and robust and I wouldn't want it to be > > at some point removed from testing because of a bug in unstable. > I think the distinction between sid RC bugs and all RC bugs was removed > at some point, without telling us. Take a look at the gjdoc package - > there are two RC bugs tagged sarge and one tagged sid, but the testing > scripts are not upgrading the version in testing, even though it would > close two rc bugs and reduce the number of rc bugs for sarge. No, this points to a problem with the bug list as seen by the testing scripts. update_excuses for gjdoc says gjdoc (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 > 0) which is clearly not true if the sarge version of the package has two RC bugs, no matter how you count. (It should be non-buggy, 1 < 3; and even if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 > 2, not 1 > 0.) I think this is something aj will need to look at, since this output is from scripts that run on auric. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature