On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:46:48 +0100 Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 03:37:47PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > It seems a bit unfair that some packages won't be part of stretch, due > > to a BTS glitch which happened during the last days before the soft > > freeze. > > It's kinda the reverse: now *a lot* of packages have another month of > time to be fixed, when before they would have been out of testing > already without any chance of re-entering it. Wait, there's something in your line of reasoning that is not clear to me. Some packages were in the following situation: testing: version x with no RC bugs unstable: version y affected by one or more RC bugs They didn't risk any auto-removal from testing. Maybe they risked being part of stretch (as released stable) as version x, rather than version y > x. But nothing worse. Now those packages are in the following situation: testing _and_ unstable: version y affected by one or more RC bugs They now risk being auto-removed from testing. If they are indeed auto-removed, they won't re-enter stretch and they won't be part of stretch (as released stable) at all. Not even as version x... And they do not seem to have one month to get their RC bugs fixed. I see that the auto-removals are scheduled for January, the 14th. One example is the already cited fbpanel [1]. [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fbpanel > > > What can be done about this unfortunate situation? > > go fix RC bugs. Needless to say, this would be the ideal solution! :-) But we both know that some package maintainers are not so quick to deal with bugs, not even when the severity is above the RC threshold and the deadlines are near... :-( Hence my concern. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgp9D6P4P5vbk.pgp
Description: PGP signature