On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 05:21:31PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Why are new upstream releases being added to upstable of the glib2.0 > package? We are in a freeze, I thought. And one seems perhaps to be > responsible for a regression in gnucash (see #404585).
It's always nice when packages that need additional fixes for release can get them there by way of unstable, but now that we're in a full freeze that's not really required and there are no real grounds for the release team trying to impose such a restriction on maintainers. As for why new upstream releases are being added to unstable, you would need to ask the party who uploaded it -- not the release team. On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 08:09:52PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 20:16 -0500, Edward Shornock (debian ml) wrote: > > It seems that the new upstream changes in glib would qualify as a > > potentially > > "disruptive change". > It has been confirmed that it is genuinely a disruptive change. Bug > 404585, severity important, occurs only with the new libglib. It should > therefore certainly not be allowed into testing, and hopefully can be > backed up. There's no risk of such a new upstream version being permitted into etch, that I can see. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
