On 2017-02-23 09:49, Santiago Vila wrote:
Of course it's not word-by-word what I wrote, but it was clearly the
meaning: When we remove packages from the distribution because we
don't need them anymore, we don't just remove them from testing, we
remove them from both testing and unstable.
[...]
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 09:02:23AM -0500, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2017-02-23 08:05, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I was actually talking about every stable release from now on,
> > starting from stretch, so yes, it would if we wanted to remove the
> > package from both testing and unstable.
>
> That's
On 2017-02-23 08:05, Santiago Vila wrote:
I was actually talking about every stable release from now on,
starting from stretch, so yes, it would if we wanted to remove the
package from both testing and unstable.
That's not what you wrote.
I don't understand why this is so much difficult to ex
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2/22/2017 4:26 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:11:45PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> >
> >> Why would I need to justify package presence in a serious RC bug?
> >
> > No need, the idea was for this bug to be either reassigned to
On 2/22/2017 4:26 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:11:45PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
>
>> Why would I need to justify package presence in a serious RC bug?
>
> No need, the idea was for this bug to be either reassigned to
> ftp.debian.org (keeping the severity) or downgraded
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 04:11:45PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Why would I need to justify package presence in a serious RC bug?
No need, the idea was for this bug to be either reassigned to
ftp.debian.org (keeping the severity) or downgraded to serve as
documentation, but not both.
> It only b
severity 855851 wishlist
thanks
On 2017-02-22 14:01, Santiago Vila wrote:
Dear maintainer:
Would be possible to get rid of gcc-3.3 in stretch?
We don't have gcc-5 anymore in stretch, so it would be really strange
that we still need gcc-3.3 (even if it's only the source) which is a
lot older.
Package: src:gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.6ds1-28
Severity: serious
Dear maintainer:
Would be possible to get rid of gcc-3.3 in stretch?
We don't have gcc-5 anymore in stretch, so it would be really strange
that we still need gcc-3.3 (even if it's only the source) which is a
lot older.
If we really n
8 matches
Mail list logo
