glibc_2.3.6-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2006-04-14 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Hi maintainers, Sorry, but I'm going to reject this package. 1) You're adding a new package directly to unstable, instead of first to experimental. 2) Glibc is currently RC buggy, and it'd really really be better to just get an RC bugfree glibc in testing asap without all kinds of new chan

Re: glibc_2.3.6-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2006-04-14 Thread Aurelien Jarno
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:03:31AM -0700, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Hi maintainers, > > Sorry, but I'm going to reject this package. > > 1) You're adding a new package directly to unstable, instead of first to >experimental. Is it a new requirement? I wasn't aware of that. More serious

Re: glibc_2.3.6-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2006-04-14 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 12:37:20PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:03:31AM -0700, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > Hi maintainers, > > > > Sorry, but I'm going to reject this package. > > > > 1) You're adding a new package directly to unstable, instead of first to > >

Re: glibc_2.3.6-7_i386.changes REJECTED

2006-04-14 Thread Denis Barbier
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:03:31AM -0700, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > Hi maintainers, > > Sorry, but I'm going to reject this package. > > 1) You're adding a new package directly to unstable, instead of first to >experimental. The first point has already been discussed, let's see other on