On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:44:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 03:38:14PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > What I'm saying is that no amout of proof that they will not be able > > to meet the targets is relevant. What's relevant is actual failure to > > do so, not your (or anyone else's) prognostications. > > the d-i isos are broken, and had i not been there, they will probably have > been broken for another couple of month.
As it happens, Frans had already noticed the problem and pinged me about it a few days ago, and I was just emerging from under a different pile of work so I had some time to look at it anyway. Failures in the d-i build logs don't go unnoticed, although I agree that this one took longer to fix than it should have done. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
