On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 22:46 +0000, peter green wrote: > Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-03-23 at 21:56 +0000, peter green wrote: > > > >> Afaict one of the key steps in getting an architecture to release status > >> is to deal with (prefferablly by fixing but I guess removing could also > >> be an option in some cases) any out of date packages for that > >> architecture in testing. Am I correct? > >> > > > > It's certainly a useful thing to do, yeah. Note that binary removals > > from testing don't happen, though... > > > If an out of date binary is removed from unstable will the corresponding > binary be removed from testing?
Assuming nothing in testing depends on it, yes. [...] > > Basically, it's still pointing > > at the britney1 output files, which haven't been updated in quite some > > time now - since July, in fact. I'll get it updated to use the britney2 > > files. > > > Thanks, please inform me when you have done so so that I can start going > through it. It's only updated twice a day (during britney runs) so it'll take a while for the result to be visible. Hopefully it'll be done for one of tomorrow's runs. > > [Also fwiw the above URL is a link to > > http://release.debian.org/britney/testing_outdate.txt , which is more > > canonical these days, given that ftp-master haven't run britney for a > > few years.] > > > Ok should I file a bug against debian-www to get > http://www.debian.org/devel/testing updated? or is it not worth bothering? There's other things that are wrong on that page (e.g. the sample log output) and I don't think ftp-master are likely to drop the link in the near future given that things / people expect it to exist, so it's not really worth it imo. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
