On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 12:43 +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > I guess we could consider that for a very specific, low-popcon package. > But knowingly interrupting upgrades for a well-known problem, on a very > high number of systems? I'm not sure that's appropriate. Quite the > opposite, actually. I don't quite understand how we could willingly let run our users into broken sites and even worse possible security issues. Be it low-popcon or high... and by the way I have some problem that popcon is nowadays used as justification for many things... after all... it's not representative, is it? Cheers, Chris.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature