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

Re: Be careful of library updates once freeze happens.



>>>>> "Ingo" == Ingo Saitz <Ingo.Saitz@stud.uni-hannover.de> writes:

    Ingo> MoiN
    Ingo> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 12:43:56PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> A few days ago I mentioned that I would probably end up
    >> uploading a new version of PAM to experimental rather than
    >> unstable.  Julian Gilbey asked why and during that discussion
    >> it became obvious that you want to be fairly careful how you
    >> treat libraries and other depended-on packages once the freeze
    >> starts.

    Ingo> Yes, and those problems may be even bigger because whole
    Ingo> woody is not frozen at the same time. Instead base is frozen
    Ingo> first.

This is rather the entire point.

    Ingo> I thinbk we even need new pool sections for each frozen part
    Ingo> of debian (e.g. frozen-base, frozen-standard,
    Ingo> frozen-leftovers), so developers can still track
    Ingo> testing/unstable for the non-froozen parts of debian (see
    Ingo> apt_preferences(5) on how to do this with apt-get).

Somehow I suspect this won't actually happen.

    >> The builder might be able to be clever on their own arch by
    >> building against a frozen libpam, but we have autobuilders and
    >> such tricks tend not to work.

    Ingo> Since new versions of libraries are guaranteed to be
    Ingo> available within the freeze an probably will be included in
    Ingo> unstable I think autobuilders _have_ to build against
    Ingo> frozen/testing. And developers have to make sure they use

As I understand it, this simply does not work with current
autobuilders.  The autobuilder will simply not build the package if
the build dependency is not satisfied, rather than pulling a newer
version out of unstable.  So if you use autobuilders against testing,
you will fail to build any package that specifies a build depend
against something only in unstable.  It's not clear to me this is even
a bug.



Reply to: