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

Re: potato late, goals for woody (IMHO)

On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 11:44:06PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, 1 May 2000, Marc Haber wrote:
> > I'd like to see apt being able to install only packages that have been
> > released at least five days ago, 
> No, one example: The last upload for lynx was on Feb 4. There's a
> "critical" bug since Feb 28 that there are buffer overflows in lynx
> (there will be a new upload of lynx soon). That's much more than five 
> days. The same could happen with other packages.

`testing's philosophy is:

	* don't consider packages less than two weeks old 

	* don't consider packages that have only been recompiled on some
	  architectures (if they haven't been recompiled on all
	  architectures there's probably an RC bug hiding somewhere
	  about it not being portable)

	* don't consider packages that aren't installable in each
	  architecture in unstable (if they aren't installable, odds on
	  they haven't been tested)

	* don't consider packages who seem to have more or as many RC
	  bugs with the new upload than with the old one (done
	  heuristically since the BTS doesn't keep a useful record of the
	  `Version' info)

	* for all the packages worth considering, include the ones which 
	  will be installable in testing (ie, if things have versioned
	  Depends: on packages with RC bugs, etc they won't get included),
	  considering combinations and so forth.

As before, http://auric.debian.org/~ajt/

a "advocacy boy" j

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

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpKJEVYQfK17.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: