Two thougts about testing
Hi,
reading larger parts of the recent threads triggered by the
'Vancouver proposal' brought me to write this mail.
Over the last two years testing became more and more a second
(almost) stable distribution instead of being a preparation area for the
next release. Now there is even security support it is not a officially
supported release.
Nevertheless I believe that testing is a good idea. But it suffers from
some problems.
1. The number of packages
Debian never stopped growing, and there are packages which are
unmaintained but they are still in the archive.
Hey, if noone is willing to maintain a package, wait a grace period
(30 days) and remove it from unstable and testing. If somone needs
it, he could step forward and maintain it.
2. Unstable to testing migration is one way
Packages migrate to testing automaticly, but removal requires manual
action.
I noticed that some developers work hard to get a package or a
specific version into testing, but if a new (rc) bug occurs after the
migration, nothing happens.
At least optional and extra packages should be removed automaticly if
a new rc bug emerges.
E.g. if noone claims to fix the bug, an extra package should be
removed from testing after one, an optional after two weeks. And also
all packages which depend on the buggy one.
--
Jörg Friedrich
There are only 10 types of people:
Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply to: