* Martin Schulze: > When there is no cups for amd64 in the release, it does not matter > whether it FTBFS on amd64 or not, for example.
I believe that such FTBFS bugs are already deemed "important"; they are not release-critical. A lot of porters who file FTBFS bugs disagree, but this doesn't make them right. > While I would love to have the exact set of packages on all > architectures, I need to accept the fact that on some architectures > some packages just don't work or cause an FTBFS we are unable to fix > in time for the release. Some of these bugs will be discovered only after the release, anyway. > This is a bit exagerated, but I hope you'll get an idea of what I was > trying to express. When the data los *can* happen in only certain > quite uncommon circumstances and the rest of the system and of the > package works fine, I'm not too sure we should delay the release to > get this problem fixed before. Maintainers tend to decrease the severity of the corresponding bug reports below RC level on their own. I believe we generally do this for web browsers, for example, which seems to be the right thing to do. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]