On 04/17/2018 09:21 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
"It is my understanding that is a RC bug for package to recommend a
library that has been removed from Testing because recommended
packages won't be auto-removed on upgrade."
Neither will Suggested: packages, by the way, depending on
APT::AutoRemove:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 09:21:31AM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > (not sure this makes sense as the practical impact is a normal bug, but
>
> Since I was CC'd on this email and I've filed several Serious bugs for
> this issue, here is what I
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> (not sure this makes sense as the practical impact is a normal bug, but
Since I was CC'd on this email and I've filed several Serious bugs for
this issue, here is what I've been using lately:
"It is my understanding that is a RC bug for pac
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 01:04:47PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >if your package recommends a package which is not available, this is a
> >normal bug, not one with RC severity (and neither an important one).
>
> Policy 2.2.1 pretty clearly says otherwise.
wow, I stand corrected, thanks.
(not
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 01:04:47PM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >if your package recommends a package which is not available, this is a
> >normal bug, not one with RC severity (and neither an important one).
>
> Policy 2.2.1 pretty clearly says otherwise.
Whlile the release policy says "Package
On April 17, 2018 12:52:32 PM UTC, Holger Levsen wrote:
>folks,
>
>if your package recommends a package which is not available, this is a
>normal bug, not one with RC severity (and neither an important one).
Policy 2.2.1 pretty clearly says otherwise.
Scott K
folks,
if your package recommends a package which is not available, this is a
normal bug, not one with RC severity (and neither an important one).
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
7 matches
Mail list logo
