Re: A hack to alleviate transitions in Britney; now what?
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:17:28PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:48:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >> [I'm personally slightly concerned about relaxing britney allowing
> >> testing to get into unreleasable states; a flag to re-enable the old
> >> behavoir late in release would probably be good.]
> > In practice, the release team has to do this at various points in the
> > release cycle anyway because the transitions become so entangled that
> > breaking something in testing, or removing a bunch of packages that we
> > intend to release with, are the only options. This approach at least
> > ensures that testing will remain installable and (presumably) useful
> > during the rocky transitions, merely requiring a bit of cleanup of old
> > packages.
> Wouldn't it be better to remove the packages from testing? this way if the
> library and other packages are ready to go they could easily migrate
> without any special hack, if my understanding of the situation is correct.
In some cases, if you want a completely consistent testing you have to
remove dozens of source packages for the benefit of one "extra" binary
package that's built from the same source as something important.
Removing GNOME from testing because something depends on libfrufru1 isn't a
win for testing's usability.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: