On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 11:43:41AM +1000, skaller wrote: > On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 16:16 -0600, DDPOMail robot wrote:
>> The following possible problem(s) were detected in the package(s) >> you maintain in Debian: >> === felix: (you co-maintain this package) >> = This package has not been able to migrate from unstable >> to testing for more than 305 days. > A bit confused here: how can Felix 1.1.3 have been in > testing for 305 days .. ? Since it was only just uploaded .. :) No, read the sentence again: It has been 305 days since felix was updated in testing. Meaning, the version of felix in testing is 305 days old, and newer versions are in unstable. > #430234 -- long double upgrade thing. Ouch. Does the status > apply to the source package or just binaries for a particular > platform? Bugs are per binary (as opposed to source) package, but do not distinguish between platform. A bug is always counted "for all platforms" as far as testing transition is concerned. (testing transition happens only synchronised on all platforms anyway) > #339164 -- yes, this is a real bug for 1.1.1, but the install > model changed with 1.1.3, so Felix no longer ships anything > directly in /usr/include or /usr/lib. > This bug has a 2005 date on it .. why is it still there? Because nobody closed it. Bugs don't get closed automatically simply because they are old. > #424252 -- felix: FTBFS if built twice in a row > Looks like a packaging issue.. Yes, but... The origin of the problem seems to be that your upstream tarball contains binaries, that get recompiled during the build? That's weird, but I don't know felix so maybe you have a good reason for that. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
