Re: [2001-11-29] Freeze Update
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:20:46PM -0500, Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > After today, uploads of base packages should *NOT* be made
> > to unstable.
> Why? I thought unstable would continue as it always has, but the
> automatic migration of packages would be stopped.
The major problem is that autobuilt packages will start depend:ing on some
base packages if they get updated in unstable, and thus those packages
won't be able to get to testing. This particularly applies to libraries
like libc6 which bumps the >= version in the shlibs every other release,
but ocassioanlly applies to other library and non-library packages too.
> Will this same rule be applied to optional packages once they are declared
> frozen?
Once optional (and extra) packages are frozen ("no changes but security
fixes") we'll have released, so no. It'll be applied to standard+task
packages though.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 03:15:00PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> >>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Anthony> After today, uploads of base packages should *NOT* be
> Anthony> made to unstable.
> Why not? I understand they won't make it into woody but what's wrong
> with fixing bugs for woody+1 provided that invarients
> about shared library dependencies aren't violated.
That's correct. I'm inclined at this point to make unqualified comments
that aren't too harmful rather than qualified ones that could cause
problems if misunderstood.
Cheers,
aj
Reply to: