-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
Rene Engelhard wrote: > Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-27 23:31]: > > > If you feel it only justifies an urgency=medium upload, then that's > > > what I would recommend. This means it probably won't make the > > > freeze, since medium is 5 days and the 31st is 4 days from now, but > > > those are the breaks. > > > > I think the 31st should apply to uploads to unstable rather than > > testing. You basically came with your freeze announcement completely > > out of the blue and said testing will freeze in 6 days, not giving > > maintainers any chance at all to make normal uploads which take 10 > > days to propogate to testing. This could lead to a) packages being > > uploaded in a rush even tough they are not well tested and b) them > > a problem I see *NOW* is that gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 (libgcc1 where all new > stuff is built against) were uploaded with urgency high and therefore > could make the freeze but gtk+2.0 was some days before with _low_ and it > is now only 3/10 days old. And now gtk+2.0 (on which the gcc-3.4 sourcepkg - libgcj5-awt - depends) is 1/5 days old *and depends on the libtiff transition*. grmbl. Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBCtp2+FmQsCSK63MRAv/vAJ9wiVnIEJ3yZ3f6dyPUrGVjVIYwzgCcC9WS 2R9KB2Jc9+0gEdkiWvY2Aao= =3C6M -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
