Re: RFS: emerald
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 08:23:01PM +0200, Janos Guljas wrote:
> > I reviewed it, and it appears to work just fine.
> Thank you for a review.
Note that I'm not a DD and cannot upload this for you.
So sponsors, do you hear me? Please handle this fine gentelman.
> > The only big issue I noticed is that the package is targetted at
> > experimental instead of unstable -- is there any reason for that?
> Experimental is targeted because of the freeze and this will be in
> new. If you think that unstable is acceptable, I'm glad to change?
The only reason to avoid uploading release-quality packages to unstable is
to get some more testing for bugfixes to testing since more people run
unstable than testing+t-p-u. For a new package, that's totally irrelevant,
and it would force you to do a separate upload later.
If you could upload it yourself, that would waste "just" buildd resources,
and since you can't, you'd have to bother a sponsor again. Unless there's
some other reason I don't know about, I'd go straight to unstable.
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.