-=| Niko Tyni, Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:43:36PM +0200 |=-
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 01:09:09AM +1100, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> Update: three weeks after my mass bug filing 70% of the 'arch:all rmdir
> failed' (aka. perl-5.10-ftbfs-rmdir on [1]) bugs have been fixed. There
> are still 119 of them left, though. Kudos particularly to Gregor and
> the other hard-working pkg-perl folks for the almost endless stream of
> closed bugs :)
Full ack here. Gregor did an amazing job, fixing almost all of the
ftbfs-rmdir bugs for pkg-perl packages. And this was not simply running the
packagecheck script that makes the change in debian/rules automatically
(guess who wrote it -- Gregor!). All the packages were also brought to
the current group practices. And I can say that reviewing a package that
Gregor has updated was quite boring -- they were all just fine :)
> Anyway, it looks like the binNMU plan is still good, and a patch/NMU
> campaign of the relatively few 'perl-5.10-transition' bugs on [1] would
> make it even better. Any takers?
There are still 109 ftbfs-rmdir bugs. An NMU campaign can take them off
quite quickly[2]. However, I feel a bit uncomfortable doing NMUs for bugs
of severity 'important' when the bugs are not even associated with a
release goal[0].
[2] I am thinking about automating the gory details
[0] http://release.debian.org/lenny/goals.txt
Wouldn't the release team be pissed if the perl5.10 transition is done
without them be aware if it?
> [1] usertag overview linked from the end of
> http://wiki.debian.org/Perl5.10Transition
--
dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature