On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 07:45:51AM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> Hi Josip,
> thanks for the report and the patch (just applied in r652)!
Thank you.
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 01:51, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mind, I think that this shouldn't be restricted to the source package's
> > 'make checks'. Use reportbug instances should test the timestamp on their
> > shipped copy of the pseudo-package list, and if it's older than one year,
> > they should (offer to the user to) update it from the canonical location.
> > It's a really small and simple file.
>
> Well, we never think about it, and I usually keep this list as
> up-to-date as possible. Maybe the best solution for this problem
> (maybe only present in stable, because testing/unstable is usually
> updated faster) is backporting.
Yes, I was thinking about stable. We've had a similar problem with e.g. the
mirror list in the stable installer. Although, with the pseudo-packages,
it's much better at least because there is a much smaller chance of
a serious regression - we hardly ever remove them.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
