On Mon, 2013-05-06 at 21:47 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > On 06/05/13 21:35, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Steven Chamberlain, le Mon 06 May 2013 21:20:57 +0100, a écrit : > >> In that case would there be 150-200 RC-severity bugs introduced right > >> away by its inclusion? > > > > I would rather say simply dropping them, as already requested in > > Bug#704477. And as I said a fair amount of these are actually already > > submitted as general FTBFS bugs or "upgrade libtool" bugs. > > If it's possible, yes outdated versions could be removed... and then > look again at those figures. But it would need to happen pretty soon.
Add to these numbers the large amount of bug reports _with_ patches not being handled during the long freeze time for Wheezy, see (note this list is not exhaustive, e.g. some patched packages are in experimental) bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=hurd;users=debian-hurd@lists.debian.org 1 serious 49 important 4 normal (1 wontfix) 2 wishlist 10 forwarded important 3 pending upload important etc. Let's do the calculation of the coverage percentage when these bugs have been attended to (and the outdated ones removed as above). Why do you expect anything to be different now compared when the freeze happened, _several months ago_, in zero time? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1368109546.4595.14.camel@PackardBell-PC
