On 05/27/2010 09:52 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > So while there is a trivial fix - that is, reverting the 10adduser > script to the previous version, we will have to wait for an alpha > version that will be even more broken?
'alpha' doesn't mean 'experimental buggy software' here, but 'could change interface (aka boot parameters) until final release'. the split (and thus its rename) doesn't introduce any more bugs, in fact, i fixed a couple on the way when doing that split. apart from that; why blame me for the slowness of NEW wrt/ my packages? there's no rational reason i can think of for holding back any live-* package in NEW. (and no, just 'reverting 10adduser' wouldn't be the correct fix here anyway). > Daniel, are you aware that alpha versions should never, EVER be uploaded > to unstable? We have experimental for that. Especially when we are close > to a freeze. if it would be an alpha version in the common meaning of alpha, i would agree. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: daniel.baum...@panthera-systems.net Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
