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

Re: splitting experimental by arch?

Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> >>"joost" == joost witteveen <joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl> writes:
> joost> In an attempt to save the world from disaster, Guy Maor wrote:
> >> I once tried to propose one simple rule that a package can't go to
> >> experimental unless there's already a version of it in unstable.  I
> >> was extremely surprised at the very negative reaction, and I backed
> >> down.
> joost> Oh, that surprises me. I remember you posting that rule, but
> joost> always assumed that it was `your final word', and didn't even
> joost> realised a discussion followed:). I actually liked that simple
> joost> rule. (I like simple things that I can remember -- there seem
> joost> to be so little of those around any more).
> 	In that case, there should be an audit process in place and
>  packages placed in unstable should never automatically be headed for
>  stable, despite not having any bug reports filed.
> 	If I have a package that is not yet production quality, it may
>  have bugs (that destroy your file system, for example), but I need to
>  distribute it so a few people with their eyes open can critique it
>  and help fix any bugs, I distribute it to experimental.
> 	That, in my opinion, is what the distribution is for.
> 	The opposing argument is that this is a new package, and if
>  people load it, it is caveat emptor.

Well, the opposing argument was that unstable is just the place for your

> 	I disagree. Packages in stable should be tested and be close
>  to production quality. If the package is experimental in the authors
>  eyes, it should not be handed to users even if we know of no bugs
>  (yet). 

Yes, of cource, your package (the one you described abouve) should not
be in "Stable", it should be in "unstable". On the (rather rare) chance
that there is a changeover from unstable-> stable, then probably you
should (just before the freeze or whatever) have the package removed.

And if it will take a long time for the package to become usable, then
maybe Debian doesn't really want to distribute it?

> 	This is a quality of distribution issue.

Of unstable?

joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org

The upstream maintainer is allowed to do things different 
than Debian, but only if he has good reasons to do so.

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: