[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 12, 2003

On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 09:36:46AM +0000, Mark Howard wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:13:23AM -0500, Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
> > The thing is that #215314 has tag: sid bacause it only applies to
> > unstable version (upstream release is on its way and will close it).

> > Version in testing is clean and robust and I wouldn't want it to be
> > at some point removed from testing because of a bug in unstable.

> I think the distinction between sid RC bugs and all RC bugs was removed
> at some point, without telling us. Take a look at the gjdoc package -
> there are two RC bugs tagged sarge and one tagged sid, but the testing
> scripts are not upgrading the version in testing, even though it would
> close two rc bugs and reduce the number of rc bugs for sarge.

No, this points to a problem with the bug list as seen by the testing
scripts.  update_excuses for gjdoc says 

  gjdoc (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 > 0)

which is clearly not true if the sarge version of the package has two RC
bugs, no matter how you count.  (It should be non-buggy, 1 < 3; and even
if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 > 2, not 1 > 0.)

I think this is something aj will need to look at, since this output is
from scripts that run on auric.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: