Re: neglected RC bugs

["Michael K. Edwards" <mkedebian@sane.net>]

>> Two, I find it very encouraging to see that there are so few "neglected"
>> bugs.  A few of these bugs stem from known issues like the ruby 1.6->1.8
>> transition; i. e., the lack of follow-ups on a particular bug is
>> misleading, because it's mostly there as a reminder or to block
>> propagation into sarge.
>
> Erm, last I looked, ruby1.8 didn't need any *help* being kept out of
> sarge.  Which bug are you referring to?

I mis-stated; the example I gave of a known issue (the ruby transition)
doesn't fit the reminder scenario.

The following bugs appear to result from a problem with the packaging of
ruby (missing ruby-dev), which I figured had to do with the contortions
involved in getting 1.8 to propagate:

 212296    54  Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
 212294    54  Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
 212290    54  Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
 212268    54  Build-depends cannot be met in unstable
 212105    55  Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
 212103    55  Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable

Here are some bugs of the reminder or block-propagation kind:

 217861    19  mm: Security bug not fixed in testing
 215107    37  libcache-cache-perl: Depends on packages which are not
               in unstable or testing
 213485    46  ire: Must wait before it can enter testing

I think my point still holds; the neglected RC bugs list is mercifully
short given the size of Debian, and some of them aren't really altogether
neglected, especially those that the maintainers themselves filed.

- Michael