Re: "testing" improvements
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:26:51PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I personaly think of a problem related to architecture
> synchronization, i.e. a given package can't enter testing if it has
> not been built on all architectures. There are more and more
> architectures so it takes more and more time for a package to enter
> testing.
A package rests in unstable for ten days anyway. I think the
autobuilders are working well enough so that most packages will be
compiled on all arches by that time and that issue won't hold up testing
*in general* (of course, there might and will be exceptions to the rule)
IMHO the bigger problem are buggy packages and packages waiting on
dependencies to get into testing as well (either because those
dependencies are buggy, or because they are uninstallable and the
maintainer did not fix it yet. D'oh, they're buggy anyway :) )
What we could learn about this glibc debac^W"issue" is perhaps opening
up unstable *for base packages* as soon as they are frozen (and I mean
*frozen* this time...), so that by the time of the release, they might
actually be at least half done to enter testing. That way, testing might
not be held up that much as soon as the new symlinks are in place.
When we said we'd had to wait how testing behaves after the first
release, nobody expected the span^Wglibc thingy. So perhaps we'll have
to wait one more time to see how britney really performs in the wild.
Michael, my 0.02 cent
Reply to: