Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 02:33:32PM +0100, Luis Matos wrote:
> > > > > 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.
It's an example that does not support your thesis. I have explained to you
that packages are *not* propagated automatically to testing when they break
the installability of other packages present in testing; that the nvidia
modules packages include metapackages designed to keep the modules in sync
with the kernel; and that the nvidia modules were specifically broken *by
the release team* during the etch release because this was the lesser evil.
You insist that there need to be more automatic checks for testing, but you
haven't identified any checks that aren't already in place.
--
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: