On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:00:08 PDT Randy Gobbel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > This brings up something that been annoying me: I've run into this and similar > problems two or three times now, where a package is placed onto the "stable" > area before the packages it depends on. This is a problem for obvious > reasons--the package isn't really available as a "stable" package until all > the other packages it requires are also considered stable. There's no point > in putting stuff you can't actually install into the directory. I'd like to > request that in the future, packages not be placed on "stable" until all the > pieces are ready to go out the door. Surely this can't be that difficult to > manage.
Err, imagemagick has never been placed in the 'stable' tree. It used to be (and will be until the next version) in the non-free directory which has no distinction between stable and unstable. Maybe we should address this... Phil.
