On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 10:30:50AM +0200, Bj�rn Stenberg wrote: > Holger Levsen wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > Bj�rn's page is broken. > > > > > > There is no automatic testing propigaton of udebs. Period. All > > > propigation happens when someone tells me a good reason to put a udeb > > > into testing, or when they are all copied from unstable as part of a > > > release. > > > > Bj�rn, I like the service and insight your pages offer very much. but, could > > you please "fix" your page, e.g. add a "disclaimer" ;-) and explain that > > there are some packages which are treated differently than others regarding > > moving from testing to unstable ? > > Absolutely, as soon as I understand what the difference is. > > base-installer is listed in update_excuses.html as all other candidate packages: > > ====== > base-installer (- to 0.066) > > - Maintainer: Debian Install System Team > - 2 days old (needed 2 days) > - base-installer has no binaries on any arch > - base-installer (source) is buggy! (1 > 0) > - Not considered > ====== > > This is the input data my script uses, along with the Packages and Sources files. > How can it tell that base-installer is being treated differently than other packages?
Because it is an .udeb, and is originating from the debian-installer folk. > Just adding a blanket disclaimer is not helpful, IMHO. Probably just using a list of packages which are in the power of the d-i team would be enough, you could write the above stuff, and a warning that this is a d-i package, and thus gets handled manually ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
