Re: testing and no release schedule

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 08:03:39PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Today, update_excuses says
> > > > 
> > > >      * -sleuthkit (1.61-4 to -)
> > > >           + Removal request by cjwatson
> > > >           + Package is broken, will try to remove
> > > > 
> > > > I see exactly 0 open RC bugs against sleuthkit.
> > > 
> > >   http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/debian-release-200403/msg00019.html
> [...]
> > > BTW, the name of the person filing the removal request is there so that
> > > you can ask them about it if you disagree.
> > 
> > All I did was to answer ajt's request who wanted to see an example for a
> > package that gets removed from testing without any open (and weekly
> > posted) RC bugs...
> 
> The RC bugs were there at the time the removal was requested, though, so
> this is not an example of what ajt mentioned as a possible mistake.

Theree was one RC bug that was fixed four weeks ago, but the package is 
still hinted for removal.

It might be removed from testing any day without this being the fault of 
the package.

> Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

cu
Adrian

BTW:

I said in a PM before you sent the current release schedule:

<--  snip  -->

One small addition for your release schedule:

Before Beta 5:
Handle not-fulfillable dependencies for contrib and non-free packages in 
the testing scripts.

<--  snip  -->

Since I didn't got an answer:

Is a proper handling of non-fulfilled dependencies and not rebuilt 
non-free and contrib packages in the testing scripts expected until this 
date, or is it wanted that the testing scripts effectively cause a half 
removal of contrib and non-free from Debian 3.1?


-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed