Steve Langasek wrote: > partman-auto is arch: all, actually, which makes the alpha recipe breakage > more annoying to fix no matter which way you slice it. Ok, still it seems fixable by removing recipes-alpha/multi_user > > If these are representative of the type of problems we'll be dealing > > with until the sarge release, and if we don't keep finding lots of > > release-critical non-kernel, non-security, non-discover problems, then I > > think that uploading developmental udebs to unstable and still getting > > RC fixes into sarge will be doable. On the other hand, if we keep on > > seeing many problems in things like partman and network-console, then > > getting them into t-p-u will quickly become painful. Still, I'm inclined > > to go with this option since it seems much easier than getting > > everything set up to let us use experimental. > > Would it be reasonable to delay upload of post-sarge debs to unstable until > we get t-p-u autobuilders fully online, and then open unstable for new > development? I'd rather have some continuing, manageable pain maintaining d-i in sarge while being able to test new stuff in unstable than a massive pain trying to get a d-i tree that has been under development for N months, without continuing user testing, to work again after the release. (Tell me what N is and I'll be able to give a better reply.) -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature