On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 07:06:59PM +0200, David Martínez Moreno wrote: > El Jueves, 21 de Julio de 2005 18:00, David Nusinow escribió: > > Nope, sadly -4 is in the archive already since I messed up a couple of > > things in -3. -4 is in good shape so far though, so it may be able to go in > > to testing. While I'm tempted to get -5 with your SELinux fix in first, I > > think unblocking things like gnome from migrating to testing is probably > > more important. > David, that is impossible, as xorg-x11 has several grave and serious bugs as > today. We should fix them before. And the other option, to downgrade the bugs > or manually force the release to testing, ends in the same blocker: the > release team. They have the last word. > Do not forget the gcc-4.0/libvgahw.a bug as well. I would like to ship > well-built code in testing. As Eugene stated a couple of days ago, there are > spreaded volatile's all along the code, not only in libvgbahw.a. > I think that we should concentrate on current unstable release, now that > (hopefully) compiles on every architecture, and we are not blockers for KDE > or GNOME or whatever other graphical package. xorg-x11 remains a blocker for GNOME and KDE as long as xorg-x11 is not in testing. It just ceases to be a blocker for being able to *build* KDE packages once it's in the archive on all architectures. As for the RC bugs, #314990 and #318692 can certainly be ignored in the interest of getting this update into testing; the one is not a regression relative to the version of xdm already in testing, and the other has a severity of some dispute and low practical impact. #319298, #318015, and #319121 all look like bugs that should be fixed now rather than later, though. > Migration from xfree86 packages to xorg ones are far from perfect. I strongly > think that we must keep the number of users small until we achieve maturer > packages. If that was a goal, the packages should not have been uploaded to unstable. We *need* to keep testing moving, not have it wedged for months at a time behind libxxvf86vm and friends. For my part, I don't actually think there's any reason for a prolonged quarantine in unstable. Bear in mind first of all that these packages are basically already used in production in Ubuntu, and secondly that having xserver-xorg available in testing doesn't mean users must immediately migrate to it since xserver-xfree86 is still around (at least for a little while). I don't think it's appropriate to hold xorg out of testing due to non-specific bugs. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature