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

Re: [hertzog@debian.org: Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:06:02PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > 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.
> * testing scripts are not run on unstable but on
>   testing-proposed-updates

t-p-u isn't a full distribution, and doesn't get any testing. The
former means the testing scripts can't run on it, the latter means
they shouldn't.

> * recompile in t-p-u are done with testing (that's already the case),
>   ensuring that we have good dependencies most of the time

Also ensuring that we can't ever transition to libraries with bumped

> 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 ...

No, what you can and should do is help fix the bugs that prevent the
newer version from being releasable.

testing-proposed-updates is a solution for security updates, and similar
high importance / low risk changes, low frequence updates. From an archive
and buildd point-of-view it might be possible to make it something more
than that, but for a release process point-of-view, it's not. Changing
the names of the suites in your proposal doesn't make it any easy to
maintain in the long term.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Reply to: