On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:40:10 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 10:02:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 16:33:23 +0100, Colin Watson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> > Yes yes, we know all that. However, hundreds of release-critical >> > bug reports cause very real practical problems for our release >> > management processes, especially when they are unnecessary. >> >> Hundreds of RC bugs? Is this hyperbole, you you have the data to >> back that up? > It is not hyperbole. By my count, > http://ftp-master.debian.org/unmet-deps/unmet-unstable-i386.html > shows 256 instances of packages depending on other packages with > lower priority. I suppose some of them may collapse down to single > bugs but it's still a lot. Seems to me that we need to get things changed. I'm going to see if any of my packages show up on the list, and fix the issue. This is less than the number of open RC bugs; I think we should fix the relationships and priorities rather than give up and sweep all these under the rug? Looking further, there is dselect (a spexcial case, I assume that post Sarge dselect is going to have its priority reduced to optional). Most of the problems are optional packages depending on extra packages. I would much rather we examined these, and had them fixed, rather than just drop the rule. manoj -- The Angels want to wear my red shoes. Costello Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
