Re: "testing" improvements
En réponse à Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:48:28PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > I said let packages into testing for architectures where nothing
> > prevent them to. Why would mipsel failures block x86 packages,
> > for instance?
>
> Because we only have one source per suite. Consider, eg, what happens
> if
> you have a security problem in a package, and the current source
> doesn't
> build on some architectures.
AFAIK, we only fix security problems for stable (and unstable obviously).
My point is not to release unsynced arches, but able people to
test packages (avoiding the use of unstable or backported unstable
packages to stable, which IMHO doesn't help) ASAP.
This could happen before the freeze only. The freeze would make
mandatory the sync for packages that couldn't manage to be
synced.
--
Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org>
<jerome.marant@free.fr>
http://marant.org
Reply to: