On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:36:28AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> We really (okay, you, Anthony :-)) really need to consider the idea
> of allowing architecture slips in testing, if, there's been a package
> that has been waiting more than (say) 10 days on a rebuild on fewer
> than (say) 30% of th
On 13-Sep-01, 17:50 (CDT), Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Previously Christian Leutloff wrote:
> > Is it really necessary that the package must be able to be upgraded on
> > every architecture!?
>
> That's the whole purpose of testing, keep the brokenness to a minimum.
>
So now w
Previously Christian Leutloff wrote:
> Is it really necessary that the package must be able to be upgraded on
> every architecture!?
That's the whole purpose of testing, keep the brokenness to a minimum.
Wichert.
--
_
/ No
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 11:16:53AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> > I'm seeing lots of problems with apt 0.5.3 in my testing release
> > installation which have apparently been fixed in 0.5.4. So, I wanted to
> > see why it wasn't in testing yet.
> > The excuses say:
> >
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 11:16:53AM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> I'm seeing lots of problems with apt 0.5.3 in my testing release
> installation which have apparently been fixed in 0.5.4. So, I wanted to
> see why it wasn't in testing yet.
> The excuses say:
> apt 0.5.4 (currently 0.5.3) (import
On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 11:16:53AM -0400, "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Packages which satisfy both of those dependencies _are_ currently in
> testing, so... why isn't APT?
I'm not sure, but I think deity would break if apt moved to testing.
Daniel
--
/---
I'm seeing lots of problems with apt 0.5.3 in my testing release
installation which have apparently been fixed in 0.5.4. So, I wanted to
see why it wasn't in testing yet.
The excuses say:
apt 0.5.4 (currently 0.5.3) (important) (low)
Maintainer: APT Development Team <[EMAIL PROTEC
7 matches
Mail list logo
