On 1 January 2013 16:46, Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@flameeyes.eu> wrote: > On 01/01/2013 22:29, Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon wrote: >> That sounds like a clear win. If it has survived the tinderboxing there >> likely isn't much to hold you back. As non-contentious topics sometimes >> end up with no replies at all... consider 48 hours of radio silence an >> implicit yes. > > It didn't survive. I'm not sure if all the bugs have been fixed now but > at some point I had to stop the tinderboxing because it was hitting > package failures, and then it was "fixed for next version" — which was > difficult to test. > > So I would veto this _for the moment_. (I'd be happy to run another test > _after_ the glibc-2.17 one.) > > -- > Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes > flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ >
I was unaware that the tinderbox run hadn't finished. I definetly think it should be fully run through with pkgconf before we fully consider switching the virtual. All the bugs that have been found were fixed, last i checked, only 2 were not verified fixed, but I could not reproduce and after ~2 months of asking people to verify whether the bugs still existed on pkgconf-0.8.9, no one had replied with the results of a test, so i closed them. If you could run it through the tinderbox again Diego, that would be great and we can finish evaluating based on those results.
