| 1 |
On Sunday, 24 June 2018 19:49:02 BST Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 2:28 PM <tuxic@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Since the unstable packages of today are the stable packages of |
| 4 |
> > tommorrow one needs to bite the bullet (and hopefully this sentence |
| 5 |
> > is not complete nonsense...I am no native speaker...not at all!) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Presumably if you're running stable on a host you probably wouldn't |
| 8 |
> want to be biting the bullet on that particular host. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> In any case, it seems likely that the news item shouldn't have been |
| 11 |
> displayed to stable users, or should have had instructions pertaining |
| 12 |
> to who it was targeted at. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Well, on my stable system I went and keyworded mpfr-4.0.1 and mpc-1.1.0-r1, |
| 15 |
then followed the instructions. I did that because I didn't want to find, |
| 16 |
later, that I'd been left behind by those versions becoming stable and not |
| 17 |
remembering the news item. I saw a good chance of inexplicable failures in |
| 18 |
that case. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Of course, it shouldn't have been displayed for anybody considering it |
| 21 |
> was never reviewed as required by GLEP 42. Stuff like this is the |
| 22 |
> reason these are supposed to be reviewed... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I'll leave those concerned to wrestle with that one... ;) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Peter. |
Archives