On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:14:30AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Huh? When update_excuses says, eg: > > + libcrypt-ssleay-perl (alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, > mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is (less) buggy! (1 <= 1) > > it's doesn't block the package from being considered. That was the case > for xutils until you downgraded the bug. > > And in any event it already went in today, along with pam. Yes, someone else pointed this out to me. So you didn't have to special case it, and wouldn't have needed to even if I hadn't downgraded the bug? In that case I am confused about two things: 1) why such things are reported as "excuses" for a package not being considered when they won't stop a package from being considered; 2) why "valid candidate" wasn't appearing in the output; I interpreted the absence of "valid candidate" to mean that the package would not be moving to testing If you could help me understand these things I sure would appreciate it. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | "Bother," said Pooh, as he was branden@debian.org | assimilated by the Borg. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpb154wEV9In.pgp
Description: PGP signature