Re: why are new upstream versions of glib being uploaded?
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 05:21:31PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Why are new upstream releases being added to upstable of the glib2.0
> package? We are in a freeze, I thought. And one seems perhaps to be
> responsible for a regression in gnucash (see #404585).
It's always nice when packages that need additional fixes for release can
get them there by way of unstable, but now that we're in a full freeze
that's not really required and there are no real grounds for the release
team trying to impose such a restriction on maintainers.
As for why new upstream releases are being added to unstable, you would need
to ask the party who uploaded it -- not the release team.
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 08:09:52PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 20:16 -0500, Edward Shornock (debian ml) wrote:
> > It seems that the new upstream changes in glib would qualify as a potentially
> > "disruptive change".
> It has been confirmed that it is genuinely a disruptive change. Bug
> 404585, severity important, occurs only with the new libglib. It should
> therefore certainly not be allowed into testing, and hopefully can be
> backed up.
There's no risk of such a new upstream version being permitted into etch,
that I can see.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: