On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 04:24:46PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > 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? I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special cased". > 1) why such things are reported as "excuses" for a package not being > considered when they won't stop a package from being considered; Because it's helpful to have the fact that there're RC bugs in the unstable version coveniently available, whether they affect the move into testing or not. > 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 You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a valid candidate. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature