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
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
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
> >
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
4 matches
Mail list logo