Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Adam Heath wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> This is all well and good, but you do not solve the problem.  Base packages
> have bugs.  And continue to have bugs.  We can not even think about having a
> freeze until that is no longer the case.

Then there comes the new upstream version of a base package that
introduces new bugs.

Then there comes the new upstream version of a package a frozen package
depends on and this breaks the frozen package.

When everything is frozen we don't have bugs caused by new upstream
versions.

> Your timeline gives nothing to this consideration.
>
> I suggest you look at base.debian.net, and standard.debian.net, and fix(by
> making patches) the bugs on those packages.

I can work on getting RC bugs fixed (it wouldn't be the first time I do
this). But my problem is that I currently don't see the progress in the
freeze when I do e.g. manage to fix five bugs in base packages. There will
still be too many open bugs and the freeze is still stalled.


Please don't misunderstand me:

I'm not saying that my proposal is the only possible or the best solution.
The only thing I say is that I consider my proposal better than the
current state with a stalled freeze.

The reason why I'm writing these mails is that my motivation to do any
work for Debian has already reached nearly zero because there's no visible
result in form of a new stable release - and there's currently no
progress in reaching this goal.


cu
Adrian