On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 01:02 +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] "Adam D. Barratt" > > Fair point. It's still somewhat stretching the edges of the unblock > > criteria though, given that chef-expander's exception is based purely > > on the grounds of it being in unstable at the right time (with, as you > > know, some debate as to whether NEW packages should have been granted > > an exception even then) and the bug in ruby-hpricot doesn't affect the > > version of the package in wheezy. > > Agreed on the stretching part. As for the bug in ruby-hpricot not > affecting the package in wheezy, that's debatable, given the package in > wheezy has an undeclared conflict with another package in the archive. > (Please forgive me if I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't think the > criteria has been «in the same suite» in the past, but rather whether > it's got an undeclared conflict with any package in the archive. (Not > that this helps, given what I want to get transitioned is ruby-fast-xs, > though. :-))
It's a reasonable point, but no, it doesn't actually help with the r-f-xs unblock. ;-) > On the other hand, I think that not providing chef-expander (but the > rest of the chef server stack) in wheezy is providing our users with an > inferior experience compared to what I think we can offer them. I've been debating this point over the past few days and under the circumstances I'm prepared to be a little flexible and grant the unblock. Hopefully we won't see any further issues arise with the packages. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1342459175.3728.34.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org
