Jay, On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:29:05AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > As far as I can tell, the two bugs concerning upgrading > xerces21-dependent packages have not had any recent activity. I > haven't been pushing this since I'm not the maintainer of xerces21, > but I intend to pretend that I am and push this anyway. > Also, xerces23 has been out of sid for some time, but is still in > sarge. As far as I can tell, this is because the version of > libxml-xerces-perl in sarge still depends upon it. libxml-xerces-perl > 2.5.0-3-1 just waiting for an arm build to transition. If it were to > go into sarge, I think xerces23 would be able to disappear. Is that > correct? The latest xerces25 is already in sarge in spite of the > missing arm build. (That upload resolved a security bug that wasn't > RC but probably should have been.) Yes, if libxml-xerces-perl 2.5.0-3-1 went into testing on *all* architectures, then xerces23 would be able to disappear. It'll be with us until the arm binaries are in, so there's no real reason to push it. > On a tangentially-related note, is there any reason why a temporary > exemption for being out of date on arm isn't made across the board > much as was done for mips some time ago? (Just a question, not a > complaint ;-]) Because we're too close to release to do so without dropping arm as a release arch altogether (though that thought has certainly crossed my mind). If we ignore arm out-of-dateness for testing, we'll get a flood of some 300 packages into testing that will then need to be built on arm in order for arm to be in sync for release, and very few of these packages are even remotely approaching release-critical. (Indeed, given the standing policy of ignoring arm out-of-dateness for packages that fix pending RC bugs, almost none of them should be RC.) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature