Re: Xfree 3.3.3.1
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 06:54:31PM +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> huh ??? as long as nobody compiles them on i386, there should be no
> problem ... and anyway, the packages in potato should be the same as
> the ones in slink, since they come from the same source, well i guess
> the difference is in the environment used for building this stuff ...
X 3.3.3 wants the same names for the architecture-independent packages
as 3.3.2.3 does. Does it work with the 3.3.2.3a ones
(dpkg-buildpackage -B)?
> yes, he is flaming hard about the X reorg on debian-devel, ... :)
>
> Seriously now, if Branden don't care/don't have time/don't know what
> happens to people not of the i386 port, that's his problem, and there
> should be nothing breaking if you do a NMU with a dotted version, it is
> the way things should be done, why was Branden screaming ? because the
> xfree-3.3.2.3a-8.1 upload was broken ? Unless someone compiled it under
> i386 and made a binary only upload of it, this should be no problem. HE
> just would have needed to take the diff, apply it in his home tree,
> check it, and release a xfree-3.3.2.3a-9. No big issue, isn't it ?
> If some one made a i386 binary NMU, that is another problem, but i
> don't think this broke something, or did it ? why the screaming then
> ???
It was broken. It was multiple sources running around not under one
control, fixes he couldn't track down, bugs getting filed against
versions he was not responsible for. And why do you think he doesn't
care? He just said on -devel that half of the work he's doing for the
-10 version is alpha and sparc support. This makes sense, since those
architectures are frozen.
> ok what now ? should they go into potato or experimental, i don't
> mirror experimental, only potato, why should i download load's of
> outdated stuff just because branden does not like it. Is there a good
> technical reason for them going in experimental, altough all i read, by
> it in the policy or in developper docs, says it should go in potato ?
It is a new version, the packaging is untested, the listed maintainer
is not willing to deal with any problems. That qualifies it for
experimental in my eyes.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| CMU, CS class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Part-Time Systems Programmer |
| dan@debian.org | | drow@cs.cmu.edu |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
Reply to: