On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:43:05PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 10:46:52PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > This is not something that can be done with bugs, > > I don't understand why you say that.
Let me clarify. This is not something that can be done *cleanly* with bugs, nor something that I have any desire to do with bugs. > > Bug AJ to do it. It is not a bug in libqt2, and it is most certainly not > > critical. > > I would suggest that the consensus opinion of the last week is that > the partial upgrade breakage for the libqt & KDE packages was a problem. > I am only concerned about avoiding the same problem occurring when > the packages trickle into TESTING, one by one. > > If we let the updated libqt2 into TESTING without simultaneously > updating *all* the packages that use it and libpng, then TESTING > becomes unreleasable. That is a problem, no? > > I don't care how this problem is avoided. I am only concerned that > if nothing is done within a day or two, then libqt2 *will* go into > testing. To my mind, putting an RC bug on libqt2 is the easiest option. > If you feel otherwise, I'll leave you to fight it out with AJT. So let them trickle in over a couple of days; what's the harm? There's no bug in any of the packages; at most an important-severity to rebuild with libpng3 (all of mine are currently being rebuilt and uploaded), so I don't see why you want to inflate severities. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <gummybear> i am going to start kernel hacking tonight * XFire gets out his peril sensitive sunglasses * XFire sets them to "Extra-Dark" <dopey> XFire: peril sensitive sunglasses = /ignore <XFire> dopey: that, and turning off my mobile phone.
