tags 238006 sid tags 229409 sid severity 227477 important tags 227477 unreproducible severity 118201 important thanks On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 01:39:44PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > I compiled a list of all RC bugs older than about one month against > package versions in testing. Some should perhaps be removed from > testing, other need a review. Comments and actions welcome. > remove brahms/1.02-kde3-3 > #235025 > Can please someone look if it really can be reassigned? Else > remove it Well, the package was certainly buildable before, packages are present in the archive on all architectures. This looks like a libtool-induced dependency problem in kdemultimedia-dev, yes; bug reassigned. > remove crm114/20040312-2 > #225146 > Either we decide it is not RC (as it seems no to affect everyone, there > had to be more noise then... Bug is waiting for backtrace information from the submitter, and seems to now be open because of *other* crashes possibly unrelated to those originally reported; downgrading. > db3 > #223142, #234507 > db4.0 > #223140 > I know we can't remove them. One of the base problems It would be nice to see fewer copies of libdb in sarge, in all honesty. Christian Perrier reported on debian-boot that there are no less than six versions currently pulled in by packages at priority: standard and above, which is rather absurd, particularly when two of them have longstanding RC bugs. > gnutls7 > #227442 Particularly since this bug is said to affect gnutls10 as well, a removal doesn't seem feasible here (without pulling out a lot of GPLed SSL-using code with it). > remove gpsim-led/0.0.3-11 > #233275 no reaction from maintainer Hinted for removal. > remove grunch/1.3-3 > #161523 current version seems not to be ready for stable Bug has only been severity: serious since 23 Mar 2004; skipping for now. > remove htdig/3.2.0b5-2 > #231985, #232076, #238006 See myn other post to d-release. > Maintainer is on it but the current version should probably not be > released Bug #231985 seems to already be fixed, I pinged the maintainer for it to be closed. Bug #238006 appears to be specific to the version of the package currently in unstable. Bug #232076 was filed against a newer version of the package than is present in testing. Do you know if the bug affects htdig 3.1.6? > imagemagick > #235712 is this really RC? Already downgraded. > remove imwheel/1.0.0pre5-2 > #229409, seems easy to fix but in sid there is #232353, so what to > do? 229409 also must not exist in the version in sarge, given that the package did successfully autobuild. Tagged sid for now. > glibc > #229461, #230857, #231538, #234691, #234347, #221969, > #231972, #231438 hmm, does anyone > know how the glibc development is going on? Anything one can do about > that? I understand a glibc upload is planned for Monday. > libcommons-collections-java > #232521 perhaps someone can NMU this Requested an NMU of Arnaud Vandyck; I'm not familiar enough with current Java practices in Debian to be comfortable NMUing it myself. > libgnome-pilot2 > #220061 partial patch is there, NMU? but there seem more changes needed Has evolution as a reverse-depends, so I'm not keen on trying to remove it; someone could probably help this one along by finishing out a patch to the upstream build rules. > libgtkgl2.0-1 > #227477 hmm, downgrade, remove (from unstable), don't know Can't reproduce this problem here with current X libs. Downgrading, tagged unreproducible. > remove pam-psql/0.5.2-7 > #230875 security bug Hinted for removal. > mc > #231071, really RC ? Causes data loss, so sounds RC to me. > remove mergeant/0.12.1-2 > #228893, no progress on this Hinted for removal. > remove mirrormagic/2.0.2-5 > #229747, licence issues, should be cleared out before we release this There appears to be progress in resolving the licensing status; skipping for now. > modutils > #118201, ooold bug but not so long RC, anyone up for a NMU? I don't see that this bug warrants RC severity, and I definitely don't see how anyone can claim this is a policy violation. Downgrading, but don't let that stop you from NMUing. > postfix > #228721, #232715 the latter one seems not to be RC, a RM/RA should > investigate this and adjust the bug Deferring to AJ. I think that at a minimum, if postfix needs to be able to modify this config file, it should not be a conffile going forward. <snip> Leaving the rest for tomorrow (or for someone else to pick up). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature