[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Releases (was: Show me the money)

Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com> writes:

> It won't make any difference.  It should be as obvious as possible what
> its purpose is without that.  Its affordance says "bo updates" in a
> far louder voice than the readme says "bo untested".

Fair enough.  Let's make a 1.3.1.r3 [1] release so that most of its
contents move into bo.  Then I will change bo-updates to bo-untested.
That will affect the mirrors as little as possible.

Brian, you and I both go through the packages there and decide which
packages should be installed, rejected, or require further testing (ie
- remain in bo-testing).  Then we compare our lists and resolve any
disagreements.  After that I'll make a release.

I'll make my list tonight and mail to debian-qa.

[1] It will be called revision 3 because there were 2 slipstream
changes to bo.  First, I removed a few packages from bo and hamm
outright - npasswd-boulder was so buggy as to be downright dangerous;
qcrack, mailpgp, and color-cal had unclear and missing copyrights, and
the maintainer ignored repeated requests to correct them.

Second, new bootdisks were added at one point.  I should have
documented these changes in the ChangeLog earlier, but I will now.
Mea culpa.


TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: