On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:55:07 +0100 Daniel Bonniot <Daniel.Bonniot@inria.fr> wrote: > Dalibor said: > > could you do an update of 1.0.5 first, please? That RC bug[1] is one > > of the two[2] holding back kaffe from entering testing from what I see > > on [3]. An upload of 1.1.2 will not fix that bug, as it's a bug in > > stable, and 1.1.2 is has no chance going into stable until the next > > release, sarge, afaik. > > I don't think it's possible to upload an update of 1.0.5, because the > current version of kaffe is 1.1.1. We cannot go backwards. We have to propose an update to stable with a patch from that release of kaffe and the patch has to change only what breaks in the report bug, no more! We cannot upload a newer release that 1.0.5 in stable. > Anyway, there would be no point: that update would not go into stable > sooner than 1.1.2. The normal way to get to stable is at a release > (except security reasons or badly broken, crucial packages), and for > sarge, we can hope to have 1.1.2 or 1.1.3. Is FTBFS a security bug? I don't think so? But kaffe is not in testing not because this bug tagged 'WOODY'! I don't think it's a problem. > Kaffe is currently marked remove and would not go into testing, but if > 1.1.2 fixed both RC bugs, it could be accepted back, right? What is the > procedure for that? I think if all the bugs from kaffe are resolved (by the 1.1.2 upload and some work on the man page), and if we wait for ten days (and got not more bugs), we can ask ftpmaster to put kaffe in testing with an explanation about the bug tagged 'woody' does not affect the current release. Cheers, -- .''`. Arnaud Vandyck : :' : http://people.debian.org/~avdyk/ `. `' `-
Attachment:
pgpZFsal4VNC_.pgp
Description: PGP signature