On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 02:20:45PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Frank Küster writes:
> > gcc-3.4 (3.4.3-5) unstable; urgency=low
> >
> > * Updated to gcc-3.4 CVS 20041215.
> >
> > -- Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:54:45 +0000
[...]
>
> > I would be glad if you would consider a reupload with urgency=high,
> > either of 3.4.3-5 or -4, in order to allow a timely fix of these RC
> > bugs.
[...]
Hello,
The urgency field has no effect for frozen packages like
gcc-3.4. The package will not propagate to sarge automatically no matter
whether it is 3 days old with urgency=low or 33 days old with
urgency=critical.
Frozen packages go from sid to sarge exactly when (if) they are forced
in by the release managers. (The release managers might /choose/ not to
hint young urgency=low packages into sarge but that is a deliberate
choice.)
Even for non-frozen packages, please do not suggest "reupload unchanged
with urgency=high" if the uploader chose a wrong urgency originally, the
release managers can simply override the urgency of the specific upload
if you ask them to, therefore sparing our buildds useless stress.
cu andreas
