Re: [2001-11-29] Freeze Update
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 10:36:51AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Out of interest: How is the following problem handled?
> > At the time when the part of testing where package abc belongs to:
> > unstable:
> > Package: abc
> > Version: 3
> > testing:
> > Package: abc
> > Version: 1
> > - Version 2 of abc fixed a RC bug.
> > - Version 3 of the package didn't make it into testing because it has
> > e.g. a dependency on a more recent version of a library that didn't make
> > it into testing.
> > - The maintainer of abc is perhaps busy/MIA/...
>
> (a) Solutions are more helpful than problems.
I did send a first mail about this problem in April (see [1] and [2])
where I suggested:
<-- snip -->
When a package was only uploaded to unstable the bugs aren't closed but
tagged "woody" instead. When the package goes into testing the bugs get
closed.
<-- snip -->
This would in my opinion have prevented this problem.
You rejected this proposal in [3]:
<-- snip -->
You're cordially invited to work on enhancing the BTS to make this sort of
thing actually workable. Note that what you propose, at least in the
context of the current BTS, takes us back to a much much worse situation
than before we were able to close bugs in the changelog.
<-- snip -->
I'm sorry for not being the big coder who knows how to enhance the BTS -
but anyway you said that this proposal that would have prevented the
problem I mentioned in my last mail would be worse than the current
situation where we don't know which closed bugs will still apply to the
frozen distribution.
> (b) We try to avoid having the libraries abc_3 depends on stuck in unstable.
> (c) We try to avoid having abc_3 depend on libraries that're likely to
> get stuck.
But there will be cases where packages in unstable won't be in testing
(either an older version or no version of this package will be in unstable
- the same problem occurs e.g. when version 3 of abc depends on an
additional package that doesn't get for any reason into frozen. It's clear
that you try to avoid this situation as often as possible but it's IMHO
very likely that the problem will occur some times.
> (d) We remove abc from testing.
> (e) abc_2 gets uploaded to w-p-u, depending on the libraries in testing.
The main problem is: Who looks whether there's an RC bug that was closed
between version 1 and version 3 of abc? Once these bugs are identified
they need to be reopened and the maintainers will be responsible for
backporting the fix to the package in frozen (if the maintainers don't
do it NMUs will be needed).
> Cheers,
> aj
cu
Adrian
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200104/msg01913.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200104/msg01947.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200104/msg01929.html
--
Get my GPG key: finger bunk@debian.org | gpg --import
Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400
Reply to: