On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > On 2013-07-02 0:15, ow...@bugs.debian.org wrote: >> >> Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: >> >>> # I guess we have to unmark the bug as found in the version >>> # in unstable for britney to let us migrate to testing? >>> notfound 712666 0~20130601-1 >> >> Bug #712666 [primus] primus: fatal: failed to load PRIMUS_LOAD_GLOBAL >> Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #712666 to the same >> values previously set > > > Aside from not understanding the logic behind that comment (as if this is > indeed an RC bug then it clearly applies to unstable?), the package had > already migrated before the above mail was sent. >
I marked the bug as having affected the version in testing a day before (previously, it was only marked as affecting unstable and thus blocking migration to testing, even though the bug affects both testing and unstable, and hence not a regression). I was unsure whether or not primus would be allowed to migrate to testing if the bug was explicitly marked as found in unstable (I guess that's not the case, then?). And back when the mail was sent, the PTS still showed that primus was being blocked from migration due to #712666. But yes, the bug does apply to unstable. Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
