On 2010-12-25, Andres Mejia wrote:
> The release-critical bugs pages at [1] need some work. For instance, a lot of
> the bugs mentioned on the "all" page are already closed. There are at least
> half
> as many open release critical bugs than what the page claims. Als
;t, and nobody else does, and the maintainer apparently has
no time for it... then the bug is not that important, is it?
If it is, make time for it.
Simply putting it on some list of "important bugs" will not magically
change any of that. Pretty soon that list will contain most of our
bugs
> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> If you think a bug is particularly important, then by all
Richard> means do whatever you can to fix it, or call attention to
Richard> the bug in some other way. Severity "normal" does not
Richard> mean "pleas
I have debianized the newest available version of grace which should fix
most of the bugs mentioned in the BTS. I have contacted the maintainer
Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> but he did not respond. Since I am
not an official developer I cannot upload the package. Can someone do it
for me? Th
The two bugs against lprng have suggestions by me in the bug reports
as to how to fix them. If someone can check out my suggestion for
/etc/lprng.perms (Bug #23682) and do an NMU, that would be great.
Please correct #31889 in the process -- it's just the reversal of two
lines in the postinst.
I h
On Fri, Oct 02, 1998 at 07:00:31PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Contrib and Non-free packages can't have release critical bugs --
> they're not even an official part of debian.
yeah yeah, the package ain't part of Debian anymore because of a lack of
license and no way to get
Contrib and Non-free packages can't have release critical bugs --
they're not even an official part of debian.
--
Raul
On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 12:56:42PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> On Wed 03 Jun 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote:
> >
> > > [...Raul wrote...]
> > > > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to
> > > > standard and demote lpr to optional.
Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you take a look at the bug report, you'll see that there's a
> workaround already in place for this bug, but the maintainer left the
> bug report intact because he wants to find a cleaner solution.
>
> Hence this discussion of lpr <-> lprng is pretty mu
On Wed 03 Jun 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote:
>
> > [...Raul wrote...]
> > > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to
> > > standard and demote lpr to optional. Yes, I know that bug-for-bug
> > > compatability is a nice thing, but in m
On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote:
> [...Raul wrote...]
> > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to
> > standard and demote lpr to optional. Yes, I know that bug-for-bug
> > compatability is a nice thing, but in my experience lprng is superior to
> > lpr.
> >
> > -
On 9 Jan 1998, Guy Maor wrote:
> Rather than maintaining this list, why don't you just set the severity
> of any normal release-critical bugs to important? That's what
> important is for!
Yes, I'll use the bug tracking system for "maintaining" that list, but I
Rather than maintaining this list, why don't you just set the severity
of any normal release-critical bugs to important? That's what
important is for!
Guy
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Hi folks!
I've started to collect release-critical bugs. Here are some first
guidelines regarding release-critical bugs:
- No package included in Debian 2.0 may have open release-critical
bugs. If release-critical bugs are present at release time, either the
release will be post
14 matches
Mail list logo
