On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Richard Braakman wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Previously Santiago Vila wrote: > > > Is this to be considered "distribution-wise"? > > > i.e. Is this to be applied to hamm, slink, potato, in an independent way? > > > > I think so, because packages that may be required in release N could > > be obsolete in release N+1 and deserve a lower priority there. > > > > Wichert (wondering if he missed something here) > > What you're missing is that Mr. Vila is looking for more fuel for > submitting bugreports. His latest theory is that it's not enough if > priorities are correct in the unstable distribution; he wants to be > able to hop up and down until we change them in frozen and stable as > well.
I think you refer to the fact that libg++272-dev was standard in hamm. Since this is an extremely wrong priority, I don't see a reason why it could not be fixed (and in fact, it has been fixed). Regarding slink, it is not released yet. Is there a reason why we should not try to have correct priorities for slink? (You seem to imply that priorities in slink should not be fixed, I would call *that* a "new theory", because a lot of priorities have been already fixed since slink was frozen). Thanks. -- "1a4ed872c2f93eba3f1836dfe6f8dbf9" (a truly random sig)
