Re: Weirdness in "apt-get upgrade"
On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 12:12:01PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 11:53, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, May 31, 2002 at 11:41:05AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Isn't the issue regarding "a better way to do security releases"
> > > one of the big reasons why v3.0 hasn't been released yet?
> >
> > Correct, and there's substantial work on the build daemons happening at
>
> That's to make the builds across all 85 platforms run more
> smoothly, i.e. to get them out in a more timely manner?
Yes. I've had to do the odd security update of my own packages in the
past, and I had to build packages for every architecture by hand.
Finding Debian-administered machines of the right architectures on which
the right build-dependencies are installed is a pain - and that was on
six architectures rather than the eleven that are going to release with
woody. (In fact, back then I couldn't get access to a suitable m68k
system at all, and I had to wait for one of the security team to sort
that out for me.)
Judging from what I've heard informally, the security team don't have a
significantly easier time of it at the moment, and it can take a
security team member a couple of nights' work just to build packages for
an advisory for potato. Although it's a shame it wasn't done earlier, I
think everyone is doing the right thing in arranging that they don't
have to do that kind of messing around in future. The build daemons do
an extremely good job building packages on a daily basis for unstable,
and they're the right tool to reuse for supporting stable.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: