Re: "testing" improvements
#include <hallo.h>
* Jérôme Marant [Fri, Feb 28 2003, 01:08:29PM]:
> > And for all this developers around that may ask what I am talking
> > about,
> > ask yourself: do _you_ really use STABLE on your own machine? And
> > would
> > you? If not, why not?
>
> I think asking such question doesn't apply to developers, who have
> to use stable anyway.
Well, I think many run unstable on all of them home machines and do not
have a _real_ motivation to fix some bugs.
> > Pinning, or you give up consistency in versioning scheme (what you
> > propose). The first is currently useable but bad since you get an
> > untested mixture with possibly bad side effects. The second way is bad
> > since it will cause problems when the Freeze comes. What should happen
> > at the day F when 500 packages are RC-buggy? Releasing with buggy
>
> They would not be RC-buggy in testing I think.
Sure they would if nobody fix them; either we allow packages with RC bugs
to into testing or we do not.
I can also imagine declaring Serious bug severity as RC but not
Testing-Critical, see below.
> > Testing versions is unthinkable, reverting to "stable" versions may be
> > dangerous and not possible because of version names.
>
> Isn't testing consistante in regard of dependencies between packages?
"Testing" only guarantees that the package dependency chain can be
resolved within testing, nothing more. What about errors in maintainer
scripts or other ugly bugs that may not appear as long as the package
has been in Unstable but became some package unuseable in Woody? What
about similar dependenices that cannot be controlled with dpkg
relationships, as long as we do not have conditional dependenices not
versioned dependencies?
Example: Imagine, someone discovers RC bugs in icewm-themes:
current icewm would pass the testing scripts and go into Testing while
the theme package would not, and what happens? Icewm in Testing is not
able to load fonts because of the wrong location.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Uns Menschen ist es zwar gelungen, das Raubtier in uns auszuschalten -
nicht jedoch den Esel.
-- Winston Churchill
Reply to: