Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Joey Hess wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I think this is a flaw, then. ALl packages that a frozen
> > package depends on also need to be frozen.
>
> They are. All build-dependancies are, however, not. I'm not sure why,
> maybe because they're not fully available in all packages or something.
>
> It makes sense to me that when we freeze base we should also freeze gcc
> and anything else used to construct base, and everything used to
> construct that and everything that depends on, etc. And hope that "base
> freezes" has not mushroomed into "75% of debian freezes"! But if aj
> doesn't have the infrmation he needs to do that, I guess we can't do it.
>
> Note though that Adrian's example concering the boot-floppies is not
> particlarly accurate, since the boot-floppies are not frozen yet.
But in the discussions I had with our release manager before I wrote the
initial mail in this thread he explixcitely stated that boot-floppies need
to be in a releasable state before the next stage of the freeze begins
(note that not only the base packages but also the the standard packages
including all packages in tasks must be in a releasable state before we
can enter the next stage of the freeze).
cu
Adrian
Reply to: