Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze
Jérôme Marant wrote:
> As the python-xml maintainer, I think that I have the right to react
> on this lie.
>
> The bug submitter decided to build boot-floppies with the python2.1-xml
> from unstable instead of the one from testing. AFAIK, boot-floppies
> must be built against packages in testing rather that tose from
> unstable.
>
> This would have never happened if they had been built correctly.
I'm sorry, but that is not a reasonable attitude.
The boot-floppies people work their asses off to try to get the boot
floppies to work, dealing with numerous packages that break them because
their maintainers do not take care to cooperate with them when making
changes, and are often completly ignorant of the boot floppies.
I don't think they have been able to build a boot floppies set from
testing for months, because the packages in testing have been broken.
They can't afford to wait around 10 to 20 days for a fixed package to
enter testing, after wating around for some indetermenant amount of time
to get it fixed in the first place, because if they do that a _broken_
package (like your python-xml package) is more than likely to enter
testing too, and there goes another month of the freeze down the drain.
All developers of packages who can potentially affect the boot floppies
(and that includes all of base, and all of their very large build dep
set) should give the needs of the boot floppies priority, with the only
higher priority being fixing RC bugs, if they're interested in helping
debian release at all.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: