Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Eike Sauer wrote:
> What about letting Robert build and upload (if ftp-masters agree)
> his package, *if* he puts it in experimental, uses a description
> that contains a warning about the experimental status of the
> package in a prominent place, and not calling it "linux", but...
linux-2.4.22 please, but just the binary-package, it should be ok to call
"linux" the source package.
This way we could put an end to the objection that it may not be
upgraded safely.
As far as unstable vs experimental is concerned, I think one of the
goals for this package is to have a common source package for the
autobuilders. Since the autobuilders do not build experimental, it
would not make any sense at all to upload it for experimental.
If Robert is such an incompetent developer as some people say and the
package does not build on the 11 different architectures, then the
package will not propagate to testing and the world will be safe from
the disaster.
OTHO, if he manages to create a package which compiles on every
architecture and produces an *usable* kernel on every of them, why
should not be the package allowed to exist in testing?
And if there is some architecture on which the kernel produced is not
usable, would this not be a good reason for a "severity: serious" bug,
which would again save the world from the disaster?
Reply to: