On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 13:27:36 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:33:49 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> said: >> >>> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> serious is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, it >>>> violates a "must" or "required" directive), or, in the package >>>> maintainer's opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release. >>>> >>>> This severity is *designed* to allow packages to live in unstable >>>> that should not yet go into testing. >> >>> Yes, but I don't think any package in unstable should ever be >>> permanently not fit for testing (temporary unsuitability is norma >> >> Do you have a reason, or is this mere personal opinion? If indeed >> you happen to have a technical reason, please share. > My opinion, influenced by that of the RM: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00010.html *Shrug*. The word of the RM is, of course, the final one when it comes to packages heading for release. And if you do put a package in unstable, and do not mark it with a RC bug, you better follow aj's advice and make it release quality. However, these are not packages meant for release, and these are never meant to get into testing, which is the RM's realm. my advice, for what it is worth, is that it would be perfectly fine to have CVS emacs in unstable, marked as CVS, and BTS tagged to never get into testing. manoj -- We're here to give you a computer, not a religion. attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
