On 20/08/08 at 21:45 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:54:00PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > During Debcamp/Debconf, I wanted to work on testing the archive with > > piuparts, in preparation for the lenny release. This was done prior to > > the etch release, and allowed to find a lot of RC bugs. Unfortunately, > > I didn't have enough time to finish this work, and I won't have time to > > work on that before the lenny release. The goal of this mail is to > > describe the current status, so someone else can pick up this task. > > Sorry, I haven't any spare time that I can offer up for helping with this, > but I wanted to comment on one thing from your mail: > > > For etch, the following failures were considered RC, and it probably > > makes sense to keep the same criteria for lenny: > > piuparts failures: > [...] > > - not caused by the missing installation of packages that almost > > everybody has installed anyway (ucf, debconf, adduser come to mind). > > (so run piuparts with a custom --debfoster-options string) > > Are there really so many of these that they should not be considered RC as > well? My memory from etch is that these were given etch-ignore tags, i.e., > were ignored on a transitional basis; it would be a shame if we have so many > more packages failing to depend on ucf/debconf/adduser now that we have to > treat them as non-RC yet again.
I'm not really sure of the current status. Of course, we could have a look at the current situation and reconsider if there aren't too many packages in that case. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
