Re: Release management and testing problems
Le Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:48:36PM +0200, Santiago Vila écrivait:
> Yes, packages should be compiled using libraries in testing. I fully
> agree, since it would help to solve the following
That's a solution, I won't comment. :-)
[ But if you read the previous thread, you'll see that aj explained that
it is not possible otherwise no new libraries would get in testing. ]
> > - packages well tested (eg: a package that was in stable where a simple
> > documentation fix has been made)
> IMHO, this is a pseudo-problem. You can take a package in stable,
This is not a problem, it was just an example in my introduction to the
problem to show how "simple uploads to unstable" can be fundamentally
> > packaging. The distinction unstable/stable is a decision made by the
> > author. The only distinction in the quality of the packaging that we
> > have is unstable/testing (i'm completely ignoring "stable" since it
> > is not changing except for security updates) and the maintainer is not
> > much involved in that decision (which is taken by the scripts).
> I don't see a problem here either. We package the stable branch, since
> our goal is to produce a stable system.
You're confused about what was my point.
I just want to point out that we may not apply the usual free software
rules to ourselves because the developement that we do (aka the
packaging) doesn't follow any formal unstable/stable cycle like any
usual free sotfware does.
Maybe this is a win, but maybe it's also what explains our problems for
stabilizing unstable/testing. I don't know. But there may be room for
improvements in that area.
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com