Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Joey Hess wrote:

> > But in the discussions I had with our release manager before I wrote the
> > initial mail in this thread he explixcitely stated that boot-floppies need
> > to be in a releasable state before the next stage of the freeze begins
> > (note that not only the base packages but also the the standard packages
> > including all packages in tasks must be in a releasable state before we
> > can enter the next stage of the freeze).
>
> Which means they're freezing with standard+tasks, not base. This is
> because the boot floppies can easily be broken if base changes, so this
> gave them a chance to get settled down in relation to a non-moving
> target.

But boot-floppies depend on _many_ non-base packages - and all of these
non-base packages are non-frozen and a new upstream version of any of
these packages might break boot-floppies (see e.g. #127405) and for other
standard+tasks packages themselves it's quite usual that new upstream
versions get uploaded. I have a big problem with this "get it bug-free
before it gets frozen" approach because in practice this means we try to
get a moving target bug-free.

cu
Adrian