Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
Qua, 2007-06-13 às 17:49 -0700, Steve Langasek escreveu:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:32:01PM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > > So please, don't do those "oh, let them pass" transitions ... they BREAK
> > > > stuff ... for real.
>
> > > What?
> > Some packages are allowed to pass into testing even if other depends on
> > it, but has issues that will take some time to resolve. This will make
> > that that package, that is now in testing, will not be installable in
> > anyway. This happens sometimes.
>
> Well, tough. Take it up with the maintainers who don't coordinate their
> uploads to unstable with the maintainers of related packages. The release
> team only breaks packages in testing when we *have* to do so to move the
> release forward (meaning, a net reduction in RC problems).
i am not blaming the Release Team <--- for real.
I just want that automatic passages from unstable for testing, when
debian is not in a pre-stable-release state have more verifications such
as reverse depends.
>
> > > > > 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).
>
> > > > kernel upgrades from 2.6.50 to 2.6.51 ... nvidia packages don't build in
> > > > time (they are not free, right?) ... kernel passes to testing ...
>
> > > That doesn't happen.
>
> > well ... it happened to me before etch was released ... in such a way
> > that i gave up using them.
>
> No. The nvidia kernel packages are a particular case where the module
> packages were willfully broken in testing by the release team because of
> long-outstanding RC bugs in related nvidia packages.
>
> Again, this was a necessary trade-off which reduced the overall number of
> release-critical problems in testing.
i am generally speaking ... the nvidia package was an example that
occurred to me (and i stop using it since then). Other problems like
that happened to me.
>
> > > > this is a simple upgrade ... because kernel packages are always NEW, the
> > > > kernel will pass because it has no reverse dependency problems in
> > > > testing.
>
> > > False.
> > true.
>
> > nvidia-kernel (meta packge) depends on linux-image-2.6.10.
>
> > a new linux-image-2.6.20 passes to testing. The new nvidia-kernel did
> > not pass because it is too young.
>
> You either don't know how testing works, or you don't know how the Debian
> kernel packages are structured.
I think i know (i let the space open for the uncertain).
And the kernel packages was an example on how things can be broken in
testing and give ideas to prevent them to have CUT (Constantly Usable
Testing).
>
> --
> Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
> Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
> vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
>
>
Reply to: