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

Re: smlnj blocked from testing. circular dependency

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:04:31PM -0800, Aaron Read wrote:
> There is a #235407 against the 'sml-nj' source package, should I
> file one against the binary package as well?

That should be sufficient, I think.

> > Er, you don't *have* to always upload the newest upstream version?

> I'm a little confused by the question mark. I would like to provide 
> users with current packages, but I would rather have a newer version
> of the package in testing, as the quality of the packaging is much
> better than in the 110.44 version.

Well, you expressed concern about the testing counter resetting with each
upload; merely pointing out that balancing the freshness of packages in
unstable vs. testing is under maintainer control.

Of course in this case, the complexity of the source/binary relationships
mean it may take some time for an ftp-master to sort out sml-nj's removal.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: