[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) writes: > Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The process by which software gets into testing needs to be much > > more rigorous than it is. Consider: > > > > xlibs won't upgrade because of bugs in ssh-askpass, sndconfig > > and/or playmidi that are "fixed in unstable." Why then, did xlibs > > get moved to testing and not the others? > > I don't quite understand this
See bugs 90118 and 90345 for more details. > [The python-newt/libnewt0 dependency] sort of bug is *intended* to > be fixed by testing, and usually is. I'm not sure why it slipped > through the net, but it's a genuine bug as opposed to a design flaw > (it seems you're presenting it as the latter). Only out of ignorance. Thanks for the clarification, that's a relief. Question: should we report such bugs under the package with the dependency, the package that it was dependent upon, or something else like `project' or `general?' > The [testing] design is solid, though, so give it a little time to > get the rough edges rubbed off before labelling it as "broken". I expect nothing less than solid from you folks. I'll keep the bug reports coming. Thanks for all the hard work. p.s. I was happy to see the unstable debconf and ssh-askpass packages install smoothly into my testing system. I was expecting a cascade of unmet dependencies, but there was nary a one. -- Bill Wohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and mh-e. Vote Libertarian! If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.
