> Jon Nelson wrote:
> > 7 Nov 2000 is quite a bit longer than 10 days from 18 Jan 2001.
...
> Well it is somewhere between 9 and 11 days interval depending on
> timezone issues and dinstall run times.
You miss my point -- 7 Nov 2000 is 2 months, 11 days (approx) from 18 Jan 2001.
2 months 11 days
Jon Nelson wrote:
> 7 Nov 2000 is quite a bit longer than 10 days from 18 Jan 2001.
> For whatever reason, adns was not in testing. This should fix it.
> In my mind, I was justified filing a wishlist bug.
> If there is a better mechanism, say so
Well it is somewhere between 9 and 11 days interval
> > Moral of the story: Read the update_execuses if you want to know why
...
> Ah. I was not aware of such a document. perhaps in the next weekly news?
Umm.. update_excuses HAS been in weekly news.
> Packages do not go into testing until a minimum of 10 days after they
> enter unstable, of course many other factors can keep them out as well,
> including release critical bugs, build problems on other architectures,
> or dependancies on packages that are not yet in testing. Now, if we look
> at
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 07:02:05PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> It is completly pointless to file a bug against a package requesting
> that it go into testing. I thought I'd point this out as I have seen
> several bug reports like this lately. The maintainer of a package has
> little control over whet
Jon Nelson wrote:
> Package: libadns1
> Version: 1.0-3
> Severity: wishlist
>
> I would very much like a version of adns for 'testing'.
It is completly pointless to file a bug against a package requesting
that it go into testing. I thought I'd point this out as I have seen
several bug reports lik
6 matches
Mail list logo
