[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bogus bug reports blocking important packages from entering testing

On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 03:04:29PM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> Currently, http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html.gz#glibc
> says "glibc (source) is buggy! (3 > 0)", linking to
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?which=pkg&data=glibc&sev-inc=critical&sev-inc=grave&sev-inc=serious
> I understand #175526 and #178645 blocking percolation to testing, but I
> strongly doubt #171659 should: it is (correctly) tagged woody, sarge, sid
> and thus shouldn't IMHO be counted when comparing the number of RC bugs in
> the sid version to the sarge version. I'd expect to see "glibc (source) is
> buggy! (2 > 0)". This seems like a bug in dak to me.

Kind-of. The BTS isn't (yet) clever enough to tell britney (the testing
scripts; which aren't included in dak atm) everything she needs to know,
so britney guesses instead. It could be made more accurate, but there's
no real point: the number of RC bugs in packages really do need to drop
to zero sooner or later, anyway.

As far as glibc's concerned, it's being kept out of testing until it's
working reasonably, which could be decades away, the way things are going.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

    ``Australian Linux Lovefest Heads West''
                   -- linux.conf.au, Perth W.A., 22nd-25th January 2003

Reply to: