On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > So you're saying bug #196564 should be downgraded then? I don't think > that *possibly* causing a segfault in another package (it's not clear > that it still does), on *one* architecture (m68k), when it's *probably* > a toolchain issue, and the m68k people don't have the time or interest > to reproduce it or track it down, should imply that the package is > unreleasable!
It might mean that it can't be released on the affected architecture, though. > For that matter, I can't seriously believe that new XFree86 should not > be released because of bugs which are pre-existing in old XFree86 > (#143825, #185936, #190323). This is actually a *very* common problem; > a lot of RC bugs existed in older (released) versions, and so shouldn't > be considered blocking if they happen to still be present in newer > versions, but the 'testing' scripts don't realize this because the bugs > weren't *reported* earlier. (Actually, rumor has it that there's a > 'sarge-ignore' tag available now, which may do the right thing for > supposedly RC bugs which shouldn't really block release; I don't know > much about it though.) Just to fend this off now, you should absolutely not use the sarge-ignore tag without explicit authorization from the RM. I believe that aj's going to be making some kind of announcement about this in the near future anyway, though. > Of course, there are already options individual maintainers can use to > deal with such issues, such as declaring their packages to be non-m68k > or non-s390 (for instance). Perhaps this should be used more > aggressively. :-/ Changing the Architecture: line alone isn't enough; you have to get somebody with appropriate access to change the Packages-arch-specific file. Historically "Architecture: i386" was abused far too much, which is why there's this extra step. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]