Re: (again) Why default python is not 2.6 yet?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:31, Michal Čihař <nijel@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Dne Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:28:58 +0100
> Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> napsal(a):
>
>> Ok, but those ~10 packages are only the tip of the iceberg. They were
>> scheduled weeks ago, and if they're still there, they'll probably last
>> longer. For example, are all the maintainers aware their packages are
>> FTBFS? I took 'gammu' as example, and there is no RC bug filed, so
>> probably Michael didn't even know gammu needs work.
>
> There is, but fixed in experimental. I just did not manage to extract
> fixes to fix build of version in unstable (well the thing is that the
> FTBFS is completely unrelated to Python version, it's just bad timing
> in some test cases), so I will probably upload version from experimental
> to unstable.
Thanks for complete the missing info! Please note, however, that I was
only running an example, extracting info at 7AM, and I was not meaning
any personal offense of no-action upon RC bugs, not bugs filing or so.
Also, it was not the important part of the email: I've received 2
replies for this point and none on the other, probably no-one else
cares about it.
Regards,
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Reply to: