Bug #178060 (in libxml2) is holding libxml2 2.5.3-1 out of
testing, compared to 2.4.24-1.
The question is, since this is also true of 2.4.24-1 (I
just checked then) would it be bad to tag this bug with
'sarge' as well as 'sid'?
Am I right in thinking that a bug tagged 'sarge' is ignored
by the testing scripts when deciding valid candidates?
I'm working off the precedent of libc6's license bugs
#181493 and #181494 being tagged similarly to be ignored since
it's not a regression...
Obviously, if this isn't the right place to ask this, then
feel free to redirect my questions. I figure this is the
correct place because: (a) I'm doing general QA work, not
looking at libxml2 specifically; (b) I'm interested in the
answer as applied in general, in case I see a similar situation,
and; (c) I'm already backlogged on gabfests on -devel (debconf-po,
/{mem,run,early} so I'm figuring this list will have all
the right people, but less of the wrong people to comment...
Anyway, the maintainer seems to be specifically ignoring this
bug, since it's 47 days old, but a new version of the package
was uploaded by the maintainer to fix 'libxml2-config --libs'
on the 22nd of February, 2003. So he's definately not inactive...
That's a different matter, however.
Triage first, arguments later. :-)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul "TBBle" Hampson, MCSE
6th year CompSci/Asian Studies student, ANU
The Boss, Bubblesworth Pty Ltd (ABN: 51 095 284 361)
Paul.Hampson@Anu.edu.au
Of course Pacman didn't influence us as kids. If it did,
we'd be running around in darkened rooms, popping pills and
listening to repetitive music.
-- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
This email is licensed to the recipient for non-commercial
use, duplication and distribution.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgp53QFsL9Q3F.pgp
Description: PGP signature