Adam D. Barratt escreveu isso aí: > On 10.07.2012 09:37, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > >]] "Adam D. Barratt" > >>It's not just those three packages, fwiw. chef-expander then > >>ends up > >>depending on a chain of a further six NEW packages (for a total > >>of eight > >>NEW sources, most uploaded within the couple of days before the > >>freeze). > > > >They are at least in part based on chef's upstream packaging of > >same. And, they're scheduled to go in today anyway, so the only > >difference to whether ruby-fast-xs 0.8.0-3 is approved or not is > >whether > >that version plus chef-expander goes in, not the rest of the ruby > >packages. > > Fair point. It's still somewhat stretching the edges of the unblock > criteria > though, given that chef-expander's exception is based purely on the > grounds of it > being in unstable at the right time (with, as you know, some debate > as to whether > NEW packages should have been granted an exception even then) and > the bug in > ruby-hpricot doesn't affect the version of the package in wheezy.
There are sets of interrelated packages (e.g. the chef-server stack) that were already partially migrated to wheezy. In this case, wouldn't it be possible to relax the criteria a little so that we can have the complete stack in wheezy instead of having an incomplete stack caused by a few bugs with trivial solutions? -- Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
