On 05-06-13 18:30, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
>> I also like it, somewhat, but am also aware of this approach rendering
>> unstable more stable than testing. I would prefer another kind of punishment
>> for neglect / some difficulty than the mere removal.
>
> In what way exactly would this effort e
Le Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:15:14PM +0200, "Steffen Möller" a écrit :
>
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
Hi,
On 04-06-13 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> [1] We normally filter out certain type of RC bugs (incl. but not
> limited to license issues), where we consider it unreasonable to demand
> a resolution within the usual deadline (i.e. 14 days of "non-activity" +
> 7 days after a d-d notice).
> # #7
> Hi,
>
> > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > > Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> > > >
> > > > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> > > > found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
> >
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013, "Rodolfo García Peñas (kix)" wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> > found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
> >
> > The packages have been selected based on the
Hi,
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> > >
> > > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> > > found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
> > >
> > > The p
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 09:37:54AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
> >
> > Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> > found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
> >
> > The packages have
On Ma, 04 iun 13, 14:06:26, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> [1] We normally filter out certain type of RC bugs (incl. but not
> limited to license issues), where we consider it unreasonable to demand
> a resolution within the usual deadline (i.e. 14 days of "non-activity" +
> 7 days after a d-d notice).
Le Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 02:06:26PM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit :
>
> Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
>
> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
> * The package had at least one
On Dienstag, 4. Juni 2013, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this initiative! I hope this leads to a shorter freeze
> this cycle.
+1 - keep the removals coming ;-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 04/06/2013 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
>
> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
> * The package had at least one RC bug without ac
Seems I confused xgalaga with xgalaga++, which does use dh.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Paul Wise wrote:
> Control: severity -1 grave
> Control: reassign -1 debhelper 9.20130518
> Control: affects -1 + src:xgalaga++
> Control: tags -1 - jessie
>
> The FTBFS bug against xgalaga++ (#707481) is caused by debhelper, it
> builds fine with debhelper 9.20120909 but not with debhelper
> 9.20
On 04/06/13 14:06, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our automated tools for finding RC buggy leaf packages in testing have
> found 79 potential candidates (see attached files).
>
> The packages have been selected based on the following criteria:
> * The package had at least one RC bug without acti
Control: severity -1 grave
Control: reassign -1 debhelper 9.20130518
Control: affects -1 + src:xgalaga++
Control: tags -1 - jessie
The FTBFS bug against xgalaga++ (#707481) is caused by debhelper, it
builds fine with debhelper 9.20120909 but not with debhelper
9.20130518. It appears that debhelper
15 matches
Mail list logo