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

Re: Archive Restructuring -- The dists/ Hierarchy

On Mon, Aug 03, 1998 at 04:06:49AM -0400, Adam P. Harris wrote:
> * Would it be feasible to yank packages out of pre-release, supposing
>   no other prereleasee package depends on it, and it has had a
>   release-critical bug for >= 1 week ?  This might reduce load on the
>   archive maintainers.


] 3.3 Removing a package
] ----------------------
]        ...because it's buggy
] If a package in prerelease or stable has release-critical bugs that
] cannot (or at least have not, and will not) be fixed (and it's not
] dpkg), that package should be removed -- either to be replaced with an
] earlier version, or simply dropped.

The release group was then supposed to email the maintainer that
it's being removed and why, remove the symlink, and add one to
unstable/foo-updates as appropriate, and mail any appropriate lists as
seemed reasonable.

Hmmm. I'd intended to note that the release group may wish to -- rather
than simply removing the package -- replace it with an older version of
the same one that didn't have that bug.

> * BTW, I consider the additional effort that will be required by
>   archive maintainers in your proposal, assuming I understand it, as
>   one of the biggest flaws in it.

The intention has been to keep the additional effort required by maintainers
as little as possible, and to try to make as much of the work that needs to
be done by the archive maintainers and the release group as automatable as

As it stands, the only extra work a maintainer *should* have to do is
reply to a "Hi! You uploaded foo_1.2-3 for i386 to unstable a couple of
weeks ago, and it doesn't seem to have any bugs worth mentioning. If you
want this to be moved into the prerelease distribution, please reply to
this message with "yes" on a line of its own. Thanks!" message with a

I personally think just using majordomo style authentication is enough
for this (ie "reply to this message with the following line on its own:
   auth move-to-prerelease foo-1.2-3 0xCAFEBABE"
for some reasonably random 0xCAFEBABE), but PGP/GPG signatures might
be possible too.

Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

Remember to breathe.

Attachment: pgpkaC16Qceev.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: