Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:58:43AM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 05:49:08PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > No, we're not asking for anyone to hurry anything. And as for keeping
> > testing close to a stable state, immagine what is going to happen once
> > unstable's libc6 DOES finally have 10 days without any RC bugs. You'll have
> > libc6 2.3.x as well as a bazillion other packages that depended on it going
> > into testing all of the sudden. How does that keep testing anywhere near
> > semi-stable? In effect it makes both unstable and testing more volitile.
>
> Explain how keeping packages out of testing for longer makes them less
> stable. Then explain how this affects unstable *at all*.
If the package is compatible (this is the majority case) with its
dependancies from unstable and testing then you can test to see if it is
this package or some library it depends on. libc6 is a perfect example. To
test xvncviewer I had to install the libc6 from unstable, and vnc just
doesn't HAVE to depend on libc6 2.3.x, it could have just as easily depended
on libc6 2.2.5 in testing. If it did, then it could be in testing now.
I'm sure there is a smaller pool of people running unstable than testing.
Personally, I use testing with a few packages from unstable like mozilla,
and xine until it started depending on the unstable libc6, then I reverted
to the version in testing.
Maybe libc6 2.3 should be in experemental instead and maybe samba 3.0-cvs too...
Hmm, maybe if large version changes went into experemental before going into
unstable it would make the transition smoother, but only for packages with a
large user base. Samba, libc6, perl, python, etc come to mind.
I'm sure there won't be a problem with getting people to use the packages,
they'll be happy that the newer versions are packaged.
Just announce that the newer versions are available in experemental,
probably DWN too and you're set.
The criteria for going into experemental instead of unstable would be for
packages that didn't have a chance of fixing the RC bugs before a month or
two.
In a while I will be able to take a more active role in the unstable dist,
but for now, I can't.
Just think, when unstable gets a few really unstable core packages (it has
and will) then people can revert those packages to testing for a small
period of time.
Reply to: