>> Two, I find it very encouraging to see that there are so few "neglected"
>> bugs. A few of these bugs stem from known issues like the ruby 1.6->1.8
>> transition; i. e., the lack of follow-ups on a particular bug is
>> misleading, because it's mostly there as a reminder or to block
>> propagation into sarge.
>
> Erm, last I looked, ruby1.8 didn't need any *help* being kept out of
> sarge. Which bug are you referring to?
I mis-stated; the example I gave of a known issue (the ruby transition)
doesn't fit the reminder scenario.
The following bugs appear to result from a problem with the packaging of
ruby (missing ruby-dev), which I figured had to do with the contortions
involved in getting 1.8 to propagate:
212296 54 Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
212294 54 Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
212290 54 Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
212268 54 Build-depends cannot be met in unstable
212105 55 Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
212103 55 Build-depends cannot be satisfied in unstable
Here are some bugs of the reminder or block-propagation kind:
217861 19 mm: Security bug not fixed in testing
215107 37 libcache-cache-perl: Depends on packages which are not
in unstable or testing
213485 46 ire: Must wait before it can enter testing
I think my point still holds; the neglected RC bugs list is mercifully
short given the size of Debian, and some of them aren't really altogether
neglected, especially those that the maintainers themselves filed.
- Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
