On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 03:06:24AM +0300, Martin-�ric Racine wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Colin Watson wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 02:05:11AM +0300, Martin-�ric Racine wrote: > > > > Package: locales > > > > Version: 2.3.1-16 > > > > Followup-For: Bug #205691 > > > > > > > > Actually, locales cannot be installed AT ALL in testing or unstable, > > > > for HPPA. Kudos to whoever allowed the package to slide from unstable > > > > to testing, without first ensuring that ALL architectures were in > > > > sync. Hello, McFly!!! DOH! > > > > > > Oddly enough, we aren't idiots: this was deliberate. The release manager > > > was perfectly aware that hppa was out of sync. However, a huge amount of > > > other stuff was waiting for glibc in testing, and it really wasn't > > > practical to wait for hppa any longer. If we get a fixed hppa glibc > > > 2.3.2 in time, which is being worked on, it'll go into testing. > > > > I still think that skiping a supported architecture, as well as the ground > > rule > > about syncing everything before allowing a package to slide down to > > testing, is > > a REALLY bad idea, especialy for something so fundamental as glibc. > > It's impractical to allow one architecture to hold testing hostage for this > long;
It was practical to hold Gnome2 for almost 1 year, though. How odd. :) Besides, while 2.3.1 has been a long bottleneck thta prevented practically all of unstable to slide into testing for about 6 months (IIRC), 2.3.2 has been there for less than 1 month IIRC, so I really don't see the problem with waiting for hppa to catch up. -- Martin-�ric Racine http://www.pp.fishpool.fi/~q-funk/
