Re: [email@example.com: Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective]
Le Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Mark Brown écrivait:
> You haven't addressed how dependancy handling is going to work with this
> system yet. You've also not really explained why this distribution is
> going to be able to avoid getting packages with uncaught errors in them.
You missed the latest change in my proposition.
* Unstable is kept like it is now.
* testing scripts are not run on unstable but on
* thus uploads for testing have to be done in t-p-u and there's
no automatic promotion from unstable to testing.
* recompile in t-p-u are done with testing (that's already the case),
ensuring that we have good dependencies most of the time
> If you can automatically determine when the package is ready to progress
> then you should be able to just progress it.
I'm not able to determine it, I'm just able to see that the version
in unstable has gone through 2 new upstream version while testing
hasn't. I can inform him that he may want to upload the last well tested
package in testing-proposed-updates ...
> Do you usually care if you have an outdated ls installed?
Does it matter if we provide an outdated ls ?
If yes, then someone will complain.
If no, where's the problem ?
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com