Re: Bug#238193: use debconf to manage permissions of ls-r not high-priority question
Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> schrieb:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:28:56AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > This should, by all rights, be a "serious" bug, but I don't know whether
>> > it's realistic to consider this RC for sarge now that it's been ignored
>> > for so long.
>> The problem is that in fact we don't know whether sarge will be released
>> within weeks or months. Currently we are dividing our efforts between
>> the current packages with rather outdated tetex-2.0.2 and tetex-3.0
>> which will be released within the next weeks (in this case really 2-6
>> weeks, I'm sure).
> I think it's a bad idea to try to get new major versions of major
> systems like tetex into sarge at the moment, and I think trying to do so
> is likely to delay sarge.
If we could be sure that sarge will be released, say, before July, I
would totally agree with you. But we can't, at least I don't know. If we
happen to release in October, base is frozen sometime in July, and other
stuff later in Summer, then I would find it hard to explain to users why
we didn't include tetex from March or early April.
I think what is delaying sarge is not that the evil maintainers ;-) of
$package try to get their new upstream version in. It's rather that they
don't know whether they should try to do so, or concentrate on fixing
bugs that will likely not occurr in new upstream at all.
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie