Re: DPLs : what do you think about ...
On Sun, Dec 13, 1998 at 03:29:25PM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On 14-Dec-98 Ben Collins wrote:
> > So you prefer that our packages get out of date in out frozen dist while
> > we fiddle around with the next release? It is well known that our releases
> > have outdated packages, atleast compared to others. Example, cvs 1.10
> > isn't even in slink while, from my understanding, the 1.9.x that is in
> > slink is considered beta to the 1.10 release. 1.10 has been available for
> > quite some time, i think as far back as the hamm freeze.
> >
>
> Not takeing sides on the frozen/deep-freeze split off argument, I'm not sure
> *this* has anything to do with when unstable splits off. This is probably more
> due to maintainer's "slacking" (I realize they're volunteers) and/or Debian
> leaving packages adopted/maintainers on the books long after they've left the
> project (and I'm including the ones that don't mention they left).
That is partly true I'm sure. But seeing the large amount of packages
being uploaded to unstable only leads me to believe that it is more due to
a lack of focus as was admitted by several maintainers. The thinking goes
something like:
"ok, I have a new upstream release I want to make available, I upload it
to unstable since my frozen package only has 1 normal bug and a wishlist
bug and the upstream release doesn't fix those any way, plus they wont let
me upload a new upstream release to frozen. two weeks later I all of the
sudden I have 5 normal bugs and 2 more wishlist bugs on the frozen
package, but I don't want to go back and fix these, it would mean
backporting the package and merging into the latest package in unstable"
So they go on. This is pretty apparent in a lot of packages.
--
----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov> Debian GNU/Linux
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. bcollins@debian.org
------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Reply to: