Hi Felipe,
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 07:58:12PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > Your argument taht war are using "only" recommends is wrong because also
> > recommends need to be fullfilled inside the release. Only suggested
> > packages do not need to exist. So I insist that s.l.unstable needs t
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:22 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [I'm taking this bug report to the mailing list because I would like to
> see a wider opinion.]
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:30:58PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
Hi,
[I'm taking this bug report to the mailing list because I would like to
see a wider opinion.]
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 06:30:58PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >>
> >> sources.list.unstable points to testing, but s.l.UNRELEAS
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
>
> thanks for your bug reports.
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>
>> sources.list.unstable points to testing, but s.l.UNRELEASED points to
>> unstable.
>
> I confirm that it might be a bit unus
Hi Felipe,
thanks for your bug reports.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:20:57AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
> sources.list.unstable points to testing, but s.l.UNRELEASED points to
> unstable.
I confirm that it might be a bit unusual to use something else for
UNRELEASED than if you do the final up
Package: blends-dev
Version: 0.6.16.2
Severity: normal
sources.list.unstable points to testing, but s.l.UNRELEASED points to
unstable. The rationale for testing looks sane, so I think UNRELEASED
should point to testing too.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
APT prefers unstable
6 matches
Mail list logo
