Re: buildd administration
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 12:26:50PM -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
>> It sounds to me like what is needed as a tag for bugs that tells QA (you
>> post noted that the release team
>> would ignore RC bugs on packages not in testing) that it can ignore those
>> bugs.
>
> If your package isn't going to be suitable for release; it should probably
> be in experimental instead, which is even autobuilt these days. There's
> almost no reason to have RC bugs that are open longer than a couple of
> weeks these days.
So do you suggest that I should have let tetex 3.0 migrate to testing,
even though there are still a couple of important issues with it, and
even though it would have made half of the packages that depend on it in
testing RC-buggy, either because they were uninstallable, or wouldn't
work?
I really think that such things should be sorted out in unstable first,
and only if the fixed packages are available should it migrate to
testing. At least if testing serves any purpose.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: