Steve McIntyre wrote:
...
> I'm building a new unstable package (2.06-4) right now with Valentin's
> patch applied, and once I've uploaded that I'll do a new bullseye
> package too.
that's great! thank you! :)
songbird
Michael Stone wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:10:33AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
>>Well, my focus would be on two things: (a) the change in compatibility
>>level in debhelper in the middle of stable's lifetime
>
>That would not have ordinarily happened, and probably shouldn't have
>happened
On 9/12/2022 11:36 AM, Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022, David Wright wrote:
>
> >
> > AFAICT it had two months in testing without this problem being
> > hit and reported.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, g-x-h is probably mostly used on stable or oldstable with
> guests running testing.
>
> I'm not
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:10:33AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
Well, my focus would be on two things: (a) the change in compatibility
level in debhelper in the middle of stable's lifetime
That would not have ordinarily happened, and probably shouldn't have
happened in this case. Other
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 02:32:16PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:15:41AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
There are automated processes that stop package migration at
certain severity levels, but they can't guess that something that
was filed at a low level really should have
On Mon, 12 Sep 2022, David Wright wrote:
On Mon 12 Sep 2022 at 14:20:59 (+0100), Tim Woodall wrote:
The same version also went to oldstable - where it turns out it works
fine - so I can see how it could be missed but this was a bug that I
feel would have, if necessary, justified delaying the
On Mon 12 Sep 2022 at 14:20:59 (+0100), Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022, Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:00:20PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > Obviously, no one desires for there to be bugs, so your question
> > > doesn't really make sense. "Should bugs make it into
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:15:41AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> There are automated processes that stop package migration at
> certain severity levels, but they can't guess that something that
> was filed at a low level really should have been higher.
I think in this case the package was
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 02:20:59PM +0100, Tim Woodall wrote:
Agreed. While I tend to try to file bugs at the lowest severity that can
be justified, I know that others go the other way. This is one I'd
probably have filed as Grave or even Critical. (I see it's now been
bumped to Grave)
If it's
On Mon, 12 Sep 2022, David wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 23:21, Tim Woodall wrote:
It just felt wrong to me that this bug (and version bump of the
package) could go to stable without someone at least acknowleging the
bug. AFAICT there's no fundamental reason it needed to go out. If it was
On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 23:21, Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022, Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:00:20PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> >> Obviously, no one desires for there to be bugs, so your question
> >> doesn't really make sense. "Should bugs make it into Debian
On Mon, 12 Sep 2022, Andy Smith wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:00:20PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
Obviously, no one desires for there to be bugs, so your question
doesn't really make sense. "Should bugs make it into Debian releases"?
Ah, sorry, I think I misunderstood - you are literally
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:00:20PM +, Andy Smith wrote:
> Obviously, no one desires for there to be bugs, so your question
> doesn't really make sense. "Should bugs make it into Debian releases"?
Ah, sorry, I think I misunderstood - you are literally asking if the
presence of a severity
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 09:23:17PM +0100, Tim Woodall wrote:
> Should https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017944 have
> made it into debian 11.5? I thought serious bugs shouldn't make it into
> stable?
I'm trying to read your email charitably in the sense that you are
wondering how
On Mon 12 Sep 2022 at 03:36:46 (+0100), Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2022, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 09:23:17PM +0100, Tim Woodall wrote:
> > > Should https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017944 have
> > > made it into debian 11.5? I thought serious bugs
On Sun, 11 Sep 2022, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 09:23:17PM +0100, Tim Woodall wrote:
Should https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017944 have
made it into debian 11.5? I thought serious bugs shouldn't make it into
stable?
Bugs have to be discovered and
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 09:23:17PM +0100, Tim Woodall wrote:
> Should https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017944 have
> made it into debian 11.5? I thought serious bugs shouldn't make it into
> stable?
Bugs have to be discovered and reported. If nobody found this during
the
Should https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017944 have
made it into debian 11.5? I thought serious bugs shouldn't make it into
stable?
I'm not sure this should be merely serious, it broke absolutely
everything for me and took me a while to track down.
Although the 'fix' was just
18 matches
Mail list logo
