Excerpts from Patrick Schoenfeld's message of Mon Nov 09 14:47:01 -0500 2009: > 3) Well, your package already has the wrong configuration (according to > policy it should have 20) but increasing it wouldn't help much.
Hm. I'm not sure why the priority was originally lower that what's currently specified in policy; I'll fix it. /usr/bin/urxvt doesn't fail any of the requirements (IMO the problem with urxvtc falls under "in the manner that xterm does"). > IME the change should be to: > 1. Not remove the alternative if its set to urxvtcd > 2. Add a note to NEWS.Debian, telling about the problem and all its > consequences Yes, this is probably the least-disruptive thing. I'll just put a conditional on the update-alternatives call and write up a note. > I can understand you in that point. But as long as there is a bug about > messing with admins configuration without at least a note about this, > the package /should not/ migrate to testing again. OK, just wanted to be sure of your opinion. -- things change. deck...@red-bean.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
