Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)

2000-04-24 Thread Josip Rodin
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 03:13:28PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > The next thing I'm doing is filing RC bugs for priority problems (most > > often: package with priority `optional' depends on package with priority > > `extra'). > > Noo, please don't do that. File a *single* bugreport for ftp.d

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)

2000-04-24 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The next thing I'm doing is filing RC bugs for priority problems (most > often: package with priority `optional' depends on package with priority > `extra'). If there is a consensus that we should not release potato with priority bugs, I'll appreciate tha

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)

2000-04-24 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote: > The next thing I'm doing is filing RC bugs for priority problems (most > often: package with priority `optional' depends on package with priority > `extra'). Noo, please don't do that. File a *single* bugreport for ftp.debian.org to update the override file. Wicher

Re: Please release 2.1r6

2000-04-24 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Anthony Towns wrote: > > On the downside, it doesn't care about priorities, and doesn't list > > explanations (it seems hard to work out what's at fault when conflicts > > are involved). > > I'm curious, what exactly do you do with conflic

Re: file RC bugs for potato uninstallable pkgs (was Re: Pleaserelease 2.1r6)

2000-04-24 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > And that RC bugs should be filed? > > I started filing RC bugs against unmet "Depends:" and "Recommends:" > yesterday. >... I've done this (except for one strange case a bug was closed by a new package but this package is in neither potato nor woo

Re: potato kernels and debian-cd

2000-04-24 Thread Joel Klecker
At 21:18 +1000 2000-04-23, Herbert Xu wrote: >> kernel-image-2.0.36_2.0.36-3.deb >> kernel-image-2.0.38_2.0.38-3.deb >> kernel-image-2.2.10_2.2.10-1.deb >> kernel-image-2.2.12_2.2.12-4.deb >> kernel-image-2.2.13_2.2.13-

Re: potato kernels and debian-cd

2000-04-24 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 12:57:50AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > However, one complexity may be the requirement for kernel-source to > correspond to the kernel-images on arches such as m68k which do not > have a merged kernel source tree, and sometimes lag by quite a few > versions. > > I show

Re: potato kernels and debian-cd

2000-04-24 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2.0.36/2.2.10/2.2.12/2.2.13 should all be removed. I agree with Herbert. We should have only the latest 2.2.x and the latest 2.0.x. However, one complexity may be the requirement for kernel-source to correspond to the kernel-images on arches such as m68k