FWIW, it also broke local scripts on my hosts: I switch between build
envs depending on lsb-release output. Until know it would look at
sources.list to gather what I was running (implementation of which
was painfully slow, but that's another matter); now it reports lenny
when I run unstable/s
Hi,
Santiago Vila wrote:
> And then I could argue that /etc/debian_version is almost always wrong
> in testing and unstable (because of it saying "testing/unstable") and
> that the time between now and the release of lenny does not deserve an
> exception.
No, it's correct. It says testing/unstabl
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> b) I can still prepare it without uploading it to bpo, no?
Yes, of course you can *prepare* it, but IMHO you should not ask
everybody to treat lenny as if it were already released as stable,
when it's not, or submit bugs of severity "important" against
Hi,
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in
> > > 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number
> > > like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which
> > > break because o
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in
> > 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number
> > like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which
>
Hi,
Santiago Vila wrote:
> BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in
> 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number
> like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which
> break because of this? If not, I feel that the BTS is be
6 matches
Mail list logo
