Re: Testing excuses question

2006-06-26 Thread Andrew Vaughan
On Monday 26 June 2006 23:08, Jiri Palecek wrote: > Sorry, I do not understand. You mean the "breaks xx packages" thingy? > > I have already said, that of these 74 packages, 15 are dependent, > and they are more or less prepared to enter testing along with > neon. The rest only depends on those 15,

Re: Re: Testing excuses question

2006-06-26 Thread Jiri Palecek
> success, > and test set in webalizer? > http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/points.html Sorry, I do not understand. You mean the "breaks xx packages" thingy? I have already said, that of these 74 packages, 15 are dependent, and they are more or less prepared to enter testing along with neon. The rest

Re: Testing excuses question

2006-06-26 Thread Ozgur Karatas
success, and test set in webalizer? http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/points.html ,''`. Ozgur Karatas : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' http://www.ozgurkaratas.com `-Powered By Debian GNU\Linux Jiri Palecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> demiş ki: > Hello, > > I've seen some mysterious excuses on

Testing excuses question

2006-06-26 Thread Jiri Palecek
Hello, I've seen some mysterious excuses on http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian For example: look at the package arch2darcs. There is: arch2darcs is adding amd64 binaries (no new version) arch2darcs is waiting for tla this looks OK. But then Updating tla makes 1 depending packages u