Re: Why is only the latest unstable package considered for testing?
On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:55:19AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 11:39:55PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 10:29:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Yes, but it is better than having our packages hold back by libvorbis
> > > and the 105 or so packages that will be breaken by its inclusion in
> > > testing, many of them have big RC bugs and such, and will not be
> > > includable in testing for a long time.
> > Could you please back your figures up with hard data? I was looking for
> > libvorbis stuff to NMU and had a time finding some. clanlib-vorbis still
> > needs porting though. I doubt we are talking about '105' packages
> > though.
> Taken from yesterdays update_output.txt entry at :
> skipped: libvorbis (449+583)
> got: 116+0: a-116
> * alpha: adonthell, alsaplayer, alsaplayer-alsa,
I was not talking about the packages that are not transitioned into
testing because of that. I was asking for a list of packages that
*still* need recompile/porting/manual intervention. There's nothing we
can do about lagging autobuilders at the moment. Anyway, I think I've
seen such list edited by you in another mail.
> > And in the end, those packages are *already* included in testing, no?
> > Just a/some version(s) behind.
> Well, i don't really care about those packages, it is just that this
> will hold up any packages which depend on libvorbis (post 0a). I could
> try rebuilding those packages with the testing libvorbis, but i doubt
> out autobuilders will be happy if i ask them to autobuild on unstable +
> the testing libvorbis.
Well, they will ignore you.