Re: testing vs. unstable
Hi peter!
You wrote:
> Well, what I'm curious about is why only 1.2 is in testing, 1.4 was in
> woody since a couple of months before testing was introduced.
I was wondering how this works. Suppose a package foo version 1.0-1 is
in sid (for ar archs) without rc bugs for 13 days and on the 13th day a
package 1.0-2 is uploaded to sid. Will then still 1.0-1 go into woody
the next day, or won't 1.0-1 be considered now that 1.0-2 is available?
Furthermore, I wonder what
- out of date on alpha: freesci (from 0.3.0.cvs20000914-2)
- there are up to date bins in alpha also
means. Does it mean that the version in sid is newer than the version in
woody (first line) and that there are bins available for alpha to go
into woody (second line)? If that is true, then why isn't my package
(freesci) considered for woody? the update_excuses say:
freesci 0.3.0.cvs20001212-1 (new) (low)
- Maintainer: Bas Zoetekouw <bas@debian.org>
- freesci is 21 days out of date!
- out of date on alpha: freesci (from 0.3.0.cvs20000914-2)
- there are up to date bins in alpha also
- out of date on arm: freesci (from 0.3.0.cvs20000914-2)
- there are up to date bins in arm also
- out of date on powerpc: freesci (from 0.3.0-1)
- there are up to date bins in powerpc also
- out of date on sparc: freesci (from 0.3.0-1)
- there are up to date bins in sparc also
- not considered
--
Kind regards,
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | Si l'on sait exactement ce |
|--------------------------------| que l'on va faire, a quoi |
| zoetekw@phys.uu.nl | bon le faire? |
| bas@A-Es2.uu.nl | Pablo Picasso |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: