[Please cc me on replies, I'm not subscribed to the list.]
Apologies for sending this here but the BTS is still down.
The current policy manual says in footnotes.html#19
Usual urgency values are low, medium, high and critical. They have an
effect on how quickly a package will be considered for i
Previously Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> However according to /usr/lib/dpkg/parsechangelog/debian, the acceptable
> values for urgency are:
And that list isn't correct either iirc.
> This change seems to have happened around dpkg 1.9 but isn't in the
> changelog.
That's because that list was never th
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:55:36AM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Apologies for sending this here but the BTS is still down.
>
> The current policy manual says in footnotes.html#19
>
> Usual urgency values are low, medium, high and critical. They have an
> effect on how quickly a package will be
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> In ftp-master.debian.org:~ajt/testing/update_out.pl (which I assume is
> the script which is used; Anthony, please could you confirm?), the
> line which defines waiting days is:
>
> my %mindays = ("low" => 10, "medium" => 5, "high" => 2, "critical" => 0);
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:56:48PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> Interesting. The reason this came up is a couple of days ago I had an
> extremely important upload to make for webmin. I put critical in the
> changelog but dpkg-parsechangelog bombed out. That's when I did some
> investigation a
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Wichert, Anthony, any chance of resolving this one soon?
For what value of `soon'? Given that noone has noticed that even
though this inconsistency has been there for years means it's
not very high on my todo-list. We'll get around to it before
a 1.10 release thou
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 12:06:45AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Wichert, Anthony, any chance of resolving this one soon?
>
> For what value of `soon'? Given that noone has noticed that even
> though this inconsistency has been there for years means it's
> no
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> This inconsistency has only been relevant since testing came into
> being.
Which is months ago now and still nobody noticed, probably since
the priorities for testing were never documented.
Wichert.
--
_
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 12:17:23AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > This inconsistency has only been relevant since testing came into
> > being.
>
> Which is months ago now and still nobody noticed, probably since
> the priorities for testing were never document
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:46:51PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> AFAIK, Wichert and Anthony have been privately discussing how to
> resolve it. I was not aware of the dpkg-parsechangelog issue,
> though. Wichert, Anthony, any chance of resolving this one soon?
Changed to emergency. These should
10 matches
Mail list logo
