* Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050224 10:55]: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:29:36PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050223 22:00]: > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:15:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050223 21:05]: > > > > > I adjusted the behaviour of apt-listchanges to make it suitable for > > > > > Priority: standard, discussing the process on -devel along the way. > > > > > I then > > > > > pointed out (in private, I think) that python-apt, ucf and any > > > > > relevant > > > > > dependencies would also need to be promoted to standard, and it > > > > > wasn't clear > > > > > whether that was OK. > > > > > > > > I can remember that having apt-listchanges installed at a buildd breaks > > > > the buildd, as the installation of files in the chroot is stuck. Is this > > > > still the case?
> > > There is no open bug to that effect. > > It might be well a bug in the buildd - I can try to check that, but we > > need to make that sure before promoting it to standard. > Why should this be a blocker? Packages don't get installed on buildds > just because they're standard; promoting apt-listchanges to standard has > no effect on buildds. If installing apt-listchanges on the _host_ system breaks buildd, than it has an effect. Please give me time to check whether this is (still) the case. Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
