Bug#607525: marked as done (RM: minitube/1.1-1)
Your message dated Thu, 30 Dec 2010 20:26:52 +0100
with message-id <20101230192652.GA18413@dogguy.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#606670: Bug#607525: RM: minitube/1.1-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #607525,
regarding RM: minitube/1.1-1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
607525: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=607525
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: rm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Please remove minitube from testing pending a new upstream. The maintainer
approves and will seek to get it into volatile instead, because of the
unstable API - see #606670.
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)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=9FVw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 0, Jakob Haufe <sur5r@sur5r.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:04:13 +0000
> "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@funky-badger.org> wrote:
>
> > As a side-effect, it will not be possible to include packages which are
> > not part of the corresponding stable release. If we remove minitube
> > from Squeeze now, further updates once Squeeze is stable would then need
> > to be made via backports, rather than volatile.
> >
> > I have no particular preference which route is taken, but thought it was
> > worth spelling out the consequences.
>
> I would either like to see a freeze exception for 1.3 or, if that's not
> possible, a removal of 1.1. Releasing Squeeze with 1.1 makes no sense for me.
>
> But it's up to the release team to decide on this.
>
I've added a removal hint for it. Even if we have -updates available,
I'm not sure that it should be used for such software. Changes that
have been applied between 1.1 and 1.3 are not negligible. It could be
tricky to accept such update during stable's lifetime.
Regards,
--
Mehdi Dogguy
--- End Message ---
Reply to: