Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 12:42:34AM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> Ter, 2007-06-12 às 22:05 +0200, Frans Pop escreveu:
> > Personally I think the current system is fine.
> just a note, as user:
> The current system is fine but:
> - priority from unstable should less than testing or stable ( as i
> think - not for sure - happens nowadays). On experimental has less
> - There are no guaranties that testing is always working and stable.
> - there are no guaranties that testing is secure (please security team,
> can you clarify this?)
You won't find a contractual guarantee from Debian about either of these
things, for *any* of the Debian suites.
There is a testing security team that addresses unembargoed security issues
in testing. Fixes for embargoed security issues are generally not prepared
in advance for testing. However, more people have access to work on the
unembargoed security issues anyway (in the general case: anyone can upload
to t-p-u), so it's not definite that stable is always more secure than
> - There are no public, announced, snapshots from testing (so people can
> download and install).
Other than the d-i betas?
> - Testing simply moves too fast and the automatically passage process
> between unstble and testing *DOES* break testing. For one example,
> package "foo" requires package "bar<=0.3" but package "bar 0.4"
> automatically passes to testing.
Um, no. That does not happen automatically. In rare cases it happens
because the release team has overridden the installability check for a
package, because maintainers have not coordinated their transitions in
unstable and as a result something needs to be broken to ever get any of the
packages updated because you can't get 300 maintainers to get their packages
in a releasable state *and* leave them alone long enough to transition to
testing as a group.
(... and this is why getting rid of experimental is a horrible idea.)
> - Smooth passages are not always smooth (who had a working xorg after
> the upgrade for 7, please raise their hands)
> - kernel modules simply die, when the kernel is upgraded, but the
> modules aren't ( people using non-free nvidia modules, raise their
> hands; people using wifi modules raise their hands)
That's a problem of the packaging of those kernel modules, then, not a
problem of testing per se; even if you track stable and therefore the
problem only affects you once every two years, it's still a problem that
should be addressed -- e.g., with metapackages like nvidia-kernel-2.6-686
(oh look, this one already exists).
> So ... automatically pass to testing ... is bad.
Invalid premise -> invalid conclusion.
> So ... more package tests are need (such as test reverse depends)
What do you mean?
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.