On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:17:38AM +0100, Paul Brossier wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:17:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > But the package is not *in* etch, so the fact that it's uninstallable in > > etch is not grounds for a grave bug.
> sorry, i miss the reasonning. does the fact that this version is broken > grounds for an open bug, or should all sid-only bugs be closed? why > would it be a problem to have these bugs open until they are fixed? Uh, I thought the reasoning was rather straightforward: this bug no longer exists in sid, and it never existed in etch. However, if the point is to keep this bug open so the udev update doesn't reach etch before the kernel update, then that's also reasonable. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
